Kingston upon Thames Schools Forum

Kingston upon Thames Schools ForumTuesday 16 November 2021

19.00 – 21.00

Virtual Meeting

An online meeting that can be viewed here

Agenda Due to the length of this agenda it will not be possible to do an introduction for each item at the meeting. Attendees will be expected to have read the materials in advance.

Agenda

1. Introduction and apologies

2. Declarations of interest

3. Minutes of the last meeting

4. High Needs Block Subgroup Feedback

5. Alternative Provision

6. 2022/23 Budget

7. SEND Futures Plan

8. 2021/22 Finance Update

9. AOB

10.Dates of next meetings:19:00 – 21:00

18 January 2022 28 June 2022 27 September 2022 22 November 2022 24 January 2023

2

ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES

MEMBERS OF THE FORUM

Councillors (2)Councillor Maria Netley Councillor Olly Wehring

School Governors (Primary Schools) (4)Margie Lindsay - Maple Infants SchoolRichard Williamson – Alexandra SchoolCarol Buchanan – Christchurch PrimaryVacancies (1)

Head Teachers (Primary Schools) (4)Rachel Nye - Tolworth Infant and Nursery SchoolTracy Coton – Christ Church PrimaryMark Clutterbuck - Coombe Hill Junior SchoolGareth Dutton – St Luke’s Primary School

Head or School Governor (Secondary School) (0)Academies (7)Ash Ali, Chief Executive Officer, Every Child Every Day Academy Trust (Vice Chair of the Forum)Esther Brooks, Head Teacher, Coombe Secondary SchoolsDervla McCann, Head Teacher, The Holy Cross SchoolSean Maher, Head Teacher, Richard Challoner SchoolMike Gascoigne, Head Teacher, Tiffin School (Chair of the Forum)Sophie Cavanagh, Head Teacher, Kingston AcademyIan Keary, Head Teacher, Tiffin Girls SchoolPeter Boulton, Headteacher, Robin Hood Primary SchoolSiobhon Lowe, Head Teacher, Tolworth Girls

Pupil Referral Units (1)Samantha Axbey, Head Teacher Pupil Referral Units

Head or School Governor (Special School) (1)Julia James, Head Teacher, Bedelsford School

Head or School Governor (Nursery School) (1)Esther White - Surbiton Children’s Centre Nursery

Local Authority 14-19 Partnership (1)Mike Tweedale, Vice Principal (Curriculum & Quality), Kingston College

Private, Voluntary and Independent Provider (2)Michelle Akintoye - Castle Stars Day NurseryVacancy

Schools Forum High Needs Block Subgroup: Monday 4th October 2021, 13:30-15:30

Meeting minutes and actions

Attendees

Esther Brooks, Executive CEO, Coombe Academy Trust (EB)

Margie Lindsay, Chair of Governors, Maple Infants’ School (ML)

Michelle Akintoye, Director, Castle Stars Nursery (MA)

Richard Williamson, Governor, Alexandra Primary School (RW)

Sam Axbey, Headteacher, Malden Oaks (Alternative )(SA)

Sean Maher, Headteacher, Richard Challoner School (SM)

Sophie Cavanagh, Headteacher, The Kingston Academy (SC)

Ashley Whittaker, Programme Director, Achieving for Children (AW)

Anna Chiva, Associate Director for SEND, Achieving for Children (AC)

Charis Penfold, Director for Education Services, Achieving for Children (CP)

Lucy Korpas, Chief Operating Officer, Achieving for Children (LK)

Scott Gardner, Senior Finance Accountant, Achieving for Children (SG)

Nicola Moore, SEND Policy & Project Officer, Achieving for Children (NM)

1. Welcome, introductions and apologises

AW thanked all participants within the subgroup for volunteering their time to this group.

No apologies, full attendance.

2. Agree terms of reference and elect chair

AW explained the terms of reference, stated that the vision was consistent with SEND Futures Plan. 3 objectives of

the subgroup were explained. Stated that there was a good representation of governors and headteachers on the

subgroup.

AW explained governance arrangements into the school forum and meeting arrangements for the subgroup, 1

meeting every term.

CP raised a point regarding the composition of the subgroup, stating that ideally there should be primary school

headteachers, special schools and college leaders/ representatives. This subgroup should have representation from

the different stakeholders that could be affected by decisions that are made.

Action: AW stated that we will continue to advertise and recruit into the subgroup

ML (Question): How will governance work with the subgroup? Not entirely happy with the vision can this be

changed?

AW (Answer): Minutes will go into the Schools Forum 3 times a year following this meeting. The SEND Futures

vision was consulted on widely and remains valid.

EB: (Q) Can we have the composition of the subgroup listed to ensure that the Schools Forum is aware of

representation?

AW (A): Yes, certainly

Action: Subgroup members to have composition listed

RW (Q): Is it necessary for all the members of this subgroup to be members of the schools forum?

AW (A): No it is not necessary

EB (Q): If they are not on the schools forum would they be an associate in the subgroup?

AW (A): Yes, this would need to be looked at

MA (Q): Is it possible for parents to be part of the subgroup?

3

AW (A): We do lots of work engaging with parents/ carers in other formats to ensure that their voice is captured

and parents and carers are not currently part of Schools Forum.

SA (Q): Is there a similar subgroup for Richmond and if so are the papers for that subgroup the same?

AW (A): Yes, there is a subgroup in Richmond, two papers are different as they relate to the specific aspects of the

Designated Schools Grant in each borough and funding for Alternative Provision is very different, the banding paper

is the same for both boroughs.

Esther Brooks is elected as chair.

3. Latest Safety Valve funding report

SG gives an overview of the Q2 summary report for the Safety Valve Funding that was sent to the Department of

Education on 17th September. Overall there was a good level of assurance to all but 4 areas and no areas received a

low level of assurance, therefore we believe that there are no areas that Kingston will not have met the conditions

of the Safety Valve agreement for Q2.

There are 38 KPIs that analyse performance against the terms of the Safety Valve Agreement and spend in the High

Needs block, these are used quarterly to report to the DfE and are found in Appendix A of the Q2 summary report.

Highlights from the Safety Valve funding report:

- Page 2, Condition 2: Maximum Forecast DSG Deficit Profile at year end £28.6m; this currently has a good level

of assurance and projections are £28.3m, we are currently £300k under. SG emphasises the importance of this

figure

- , Condition 3.4: Improve efficiency of commissioning services to drive down cost. This is a medium level

of assurance; this is due to the on-going discussion with college providers to lower their TA hourly rate and SEN

commissioning posts have been currently filled with interim positions. Targeted savings = £351k, current

savings = £114k. Independent placements have decreased in cost and current savings of £215k

- Page 5, Condition 3.5: Increase contributions from health and social care, this is a medium level of assurance,

there will be phase transfers and transitions completed in September 2021, we will have a much clearer picture

in Q3 reporting.

- Page 6, Condition 3.7:Reforming of the authority’s post-16 offer, including but not limited to development of

new provision, this is a medium level of assurance. The Preparing for Adulthood team restructure has been

completed and there is a positive impact on annual reviews and other processes. Malden Oaks has opened a

new post-16 provision, 8 spaces have been created. We are continuing to work towards the opening up of a

new 16-25 year campus.

- Page 7, Capital: Progress on capital investment and associated local infrastructure growth. The ESFA’s progress

towards delivering a new special free school has been delayed and which has put the proposed opening date

of September 2023 at high risk of not being achievable.

- Support has been requested from the Department of Education on the following: We continue to hear of cases

where health professionals have discussed EHC needs assessments / plans and / or particular school

placements with families in a way that is not always in line with the statutory process / SEND Code of Practice.

We would ask that the DfE works with NHS England colleagues to ensure such conversations are conducted in

line with formal processes.

- In summary net deficit to the Dedicated School Grant is due to be £347k under the target, which is positive

RW (Q): Are the £215k savings on independent placements part of the plan or incremental benefit?

SG (A): Yes this is part of the plan

EB (Q): What has driven this saving? Is this an on-going trend?

SG (A): Yes it is an on-going trend and expenditure should reduce further with improvements in SEN commissioning

4

AC (A): This is also due to more young people being placed in FE colleges (some with higher needs) and working

with independent providers to ensure that they are cost effective. Point to note that placements are full for post-16

and costs may increase due to the need to place in more independent settings.

EB (Q): Do we need to include something in more detail on the objectives about Safety Valve funding eg re. timings?

AW (A): Action: Yes we can add

MA (Q): Is there an opportunity to fund SEN in early years prior to an Education Health Care Plan?

CP (A): There is an Early Years Inclusion Fund (reported on through Schools Forum) that has been in existence for

several years. This fund is to support children with SEN in early years settings exactly for this purpose.

RW: We need to understand how we can spend Early Years Inclusion Fund to ensure that it is being used in a

meaningful way.

ML (Q): Is there any additional funding for Educational Psychologists at the pre-Education Health Care plan stage as

there is a lot of money being spent on this?

CP (A): As a school there is a duty to ensure that all children and young people are assessed if required to ensure

that they have the best possible outcomes. There is pre-Education Health Care plan support with social

communication needs that is widely accessed. Given finite resources,

There is a challenge around being able to deliver early intervention whilst still maintaining our statutory duty and

education settings must play a role in this.

AC (A): There is a growing need in early years and we are working with health partners and early years to ensure

that we are pathway planning from the earliest possible opportunity.

RW: Re my comments in the paper in a later agenda item I believe April would be a better time to do the school

census

MA: The funding around early years needs to be greater to ensure that early intervention

CP: Completely support early intervention, the challenge we have as previously mentioned is our statutory

obligations and the need to allocate finite resources to make sure we are meeting these . Better work is currently

happening with health in early years and this should improve our early intervention further.

ML (Q): Why has there been a delay on the new campus for Post-16?

CP (A): There hasn’t been a delay, this is now not a concept, it is a business case and is endorsed and supported by

the Council. We also have capital investment to move this project forward.

EB (Q): Is this a budget risk? Are we looking at any mitigating costs if this is delayed?

AC (A): Yes it’s a risk. We are currently looking at local development and colleges are also keen to work with us, we

are looking at local solutions. We are concentrating on ensuring that children and young people are positively

transitioning between stages and are being given targeted support. We want our children and young people to stay

local. The new campus is a big part of our plan for local provision.

4. Banding System Approach

AC explained the paper. This is currently a joint paper with Richmond if we move forward this will become borough

specific. Banding system is used with regards to the top-up funding for individual children with an Education, Health

and Care plan. This paper explains the benefit of a more universal tool that works across all educational settings and

with all providers. Recommendations in the paper were explained:

1. Review and improve the existing banding and matrix systems to create a universal banding tool to be used

across all schools and colleges

2. Replace the existing banding and matrix systems with an “off the shelf” universal banding tool to be used

across all schools and colleges

3. Adopt 1 or 2 above for special schools and colleges only

4. Adopt 1 or 2 above for special schools only

5

5. Do not review bandings.

Recommended options are 1 and 2. Option 2 has apparently generated significant savings in other LondonBoroughs. Option 2 would be the preferred option due to officer time constraints, easier mobilisation andindependence of methodology. The approach that we advance with would need to make a positive financial impacton the High Needs Block.

EB: Thanked AC for very detailed papersSC (Q): Has any benchmarking been completed for option 1 and 2?AC (A): Not yet, it will be done after recommendations from this group have been given and benchmarking with LKand SG. Banding descriptors would be the same for option 1 and 2, differences are that option 1 is people led ondecisions whereas option 2 uses a standardised “independent” algorithm.RW: Definitely option 1 or 2, option 2 would be preference due to the workload and time savings, also proven towork elsewhere and assume would be helpful in tribunals.SM: We need to ensure that workloads are manageable if there are big system changes, for both school staff andAchieving for Children staff. Financial modelling of any changes is importantAC: Next steps are to financially model the impact of any changesEB (Q): Would this item go to Schools Forum with financial modelling for a vote?AW (A): Option 2 is recommended, Schools Forum will be informed and financial modelling will then be completedLK (A): Schools Forum are to be made aware and get opinions however there will be no need for formal approval.Engagement would need to be completed with affected schools.MA: Option 2 is the best way forward and we need to realise the benefits as soon as possible.EB: Another consideration is how do we know that we have children in the correct provision?

Summary of recommendations: Option 2 is the preferred option, benchmarking and financial modelling to becompleted for this option and option 1 to provide a comparison.

5. Alternative Provision funding

CP: summarises paper and recommendations.

Malden Oaks provides statutory places for permanently excluded children and young people from the 6th day,

respite and dual registered places, and delivers medical tuition for young people unable to attend their secondary

school.

Malden Oaks is planning to academise which changes the relationship with the local authority and means we need

to agree on the arrangements for our Alternative Provision.

Options that need to be considered are below:

1. Proposal for the new Alternative Provision once Malden Oaks academise are:

- 20 spaces for permanently excluded children across the year

- 20-25 spaces for respite and dual registered children across the year

2. The continuation of funding for the Education Inclusion Support Service (EISS) via a schools block transfer.

This will also be included in the autumn schools consultation.

3. Identify any additional information that may be required for the Schools Forums

EB (Q): Is this to be taken to Schools Forum to be consulted on with the subgroups recommendation?

LK (A): Yes

RW (Q): Are the respite places statutory?

LK (A): No they are not but this something that we recommend doing

RW (Q): How is the payment mechanism changing for top up funding? I am hugely supportive of the Education

Inclusion Support Service

6

LK (A): Malden Oaks isn’t an academy so at the moment they get paid that directly from the Local Authority, once it

does acadmise it will be paid to the Education & Skills Funding Agency and the top up funding over £10,000 will be

paid from the schools that are using the provision.

SC (Q): Where is the EISS currently funded from?

LK (A): It’s a schools block transfer and this is Schools Forum decision

SC (Q): How is the EISS measured?

CP (A): In the paper at 5.1.6 there is considerable information on the impact but if you feel that more information is

required for the schools forum this can be provided. This service is early intervention and important for primary

schools.

EB: Action: We need more data and information on the impact of EISS on secondary schools vs primary heads to

ensure it is a valued service that needs to be continued.

SC (Q): Concerned on the reduction of respite places, can we get SA views on this?

SA (A): We would need to review the data that sits behind this paper and I’d need to look at the impact of lockdown

before answering that question

SM: We must discuss and carefully consider any potential changes

MA (Q): Is Malden Oaks replacing Kingston's pupil referral unit or is a subcontractor?

CP (A): Malden Oaks is our Pupil Referral Unit but it is not commonly referred to as such. It is an alternative

provision and referred to as a school.

SA: Action: Malden Oaks outcomes report to be circulated following this meeting

Summary of recommendations: We require further information on the paper including analysis of the Education

Inclusion Support Service which will be split into primary and secondary school data, this is to be provided by

Sheldon Snashall.

6. Targeted High Needs methodology

SG: Explains the principle of targeted high needs funding, it is a funding element for schools that have a

disproportionate amount of children with additional needs to give them additional support. It is calculated on a %,

if a school is over the % of children that have an Education, Health and Care Plan they will receive funding. All of the

£300k is then distributed between these schools to ensure that they are fully supported.

There are 4 areas of discussion:

1. if the continuation of a Targeted High Needs (THN) budget is required

2. the level at which the THN budget should be set and if the THN budget should be reduced and a proportion

used to fund Early Intervention model including the Bridge

3. changing the month used for the snapshot in time within the existing methodology for calculating and

distributing any agreed THN budget

4. Identify any additional information that should be presented to Schools Forum in November to enable it to

make a fully informed decision

SM: I am not in favour of changing how the Targeted High Needs funding is used or how it is paid, it has been

instrumental in the way we have supported children and young people with Education, Health and Care plans at the

school.

RW: It would be helpful to include in the consultation document if we can show the schools how they would be

affected by the funding changing to £100k, £200k or £300k

SG: Action: This will be calculated and shared in the consultation

SC: I am not in favour of changing this, the schools that are working with a higher % of children and young people

with additional needs and disabilities should be funded appropriately.

7

RW: I believe there is some interdependence with this question and what happens with the banding approach

review, if the banding approach was changed to ensure that funding for each child and young person matches the

cost of provision that is statutory then this Targeted Highs Needs funding would not be required. This should be

highlighted to the Schools Forum with this question and the banding approach review.

SC: My view is that it is not just prior attainment that we should be considering as a factor when it comes to review

funding there are other factors that affect this.

ML (Q): Is it correct that if we get the banding approach review correct then this funding will not be required?

SG (A): Yes, if matrix funding and the band levels are correct then this may not be required moving forward.

Summary of recommendations: Scott Gardner will collate all the views from this subgroup and present in a paper

to the schools forum for consideration before next month’s meeting. Subgroup’s recommendation is to leave the

funding for the year, after the banding review has been completed then we may have a different view for next year.

7. Forward planning

- Actions from this meeting

- Post 16 placements

- Local provision review of required / new special schools and specialist placements

- Safety Valve report for Q3 to be discussed

8. Dates and times of future meetings

31st January 2022 - 13:30-15:00

16th May 2022 - 13:30-15:00

9. A.O.B

RW: These are the most high quality discussions I have had on these subjects in the 4 years of being governor

MA (Q): Would like to have a discussion around early intervention and early years SEN, is this possible?

CP (A): Action: Yes, we already have a meeting set up around this and I will invite you

End of Meeting

8

REPORT TO: Kingston Schools Forum Item 5

DATE: 16 November 2021

SUBJECT: Alternative Provision funding

1. Purpose of report:

1.1. To consider the future funding model for alternative provision and the number ofdual registration place

1.2. To consider whether Schools Forum wishes to provide funding to support the EarlyIntervention Outreach Service in 2022/23 and if so the funding methodology

2. Recommendations:

That Schools Forum:

2.1. Supports in principle, and subject to consultation, the proposal regarding the fundingmodel for secondary alternative provision and makes a recommendation regardingthe number of respite / dual registered places commissioned from MO.

2.2. Considers whether to approve the continuation of funding for the EducationInclusion Support Service (EISS) via a schools block transfer and if not whether toconsider an alternative funding methodology.

3. Alternative Provision - services delivered by Malden Oaks (MO)

3.1. Since 2018 the model for secondary school inclusion support has been evolving in

response to school referrals, needs identified and ongoing discussion with secondary

school leaders

3.2. Secondary Provision. The current model commissioned from Malden Oaks is 45 full

time equivalent places. These are used for:

3.2.1. Permanent exclusions. Malden Oaks provides education to pupils that have

been permanently excluded. Where a child is permanently excluded they

complete a referral to Malden Oaks, in liaison with the AfC Exclusions and

Reintegration Officer. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to

provide education for permanently excluded pupils from the 6th day of

exclusion from school.

3.2.2. Respite / Dual Registered places - Where a school wishes to refer a CYP for a

dual registered place, they refer directly to Malden Oaks (See

https://maldenoaks.org/gallery/school-referrals/). The suitability of the

referral is discussed at a weekly internal Malden Oaks panel and following

this the place is confirmed or otherwise.

3.3. Medical tuition - Malden Oaks is also commissioned to provide tuition for secondarypupils who are unable to attend school due to medical issues. They arecommissioned to provide this local authority statutory duty. These pupils typically

9

https://maldenoaks.org/gallery/school-referrals/

receive around 7.5 hours a week tuition as their medical needs mean that theyfrequently cannot access more education than this. This provision is increased asappropriate and develops to include group sessions at Malden Oaks if the CYP is wellenough and to support the reintegration to school. Schools refer to this service viaMalden Oaks (https://maldenoaks.org/gallery/referrals-medical-tuition/). In orderfor a CYP to be eligible for medical tuition there has to be written evidence from amedically qualified Consultant confirming that the CYP is currently too unwell to be

in school. In July MO were supporting seven children on medical tuition.

3.4. The following table summarises the funding paid to Malden Oaks for Kingston

children in 2021/22. It excludes funding of SEND places.

KINGSTON FUNDING (all from High Needs Block) 2021/22

FTE

Places Annual £

Alternative Provision - Place and Top Up (£14,850) 45 668,250

AWPU Recoupment estimate based on actual usage -72,579

Medical places / Reintegration Support Service - based on actual 281,000

Reintegration Support Assistant - subject to annual evaluation 13,000

TOTAL EXCL SEND PLACES 889,671

4. Malden Oaks, what is changing?

4.1. Malden Oaks is planning to academise towards the end of this financial year. This

will change the relationship with AfC / Local Authority as they will no longer be a

maintained school. It is important that as an academy school MO is accountable to

the schools that use the dual registered places as well as to AfC for the permanent

exclusions / medical tuitions.

4.2. An alternative proposed funding model is recommended:

Permanent Exclusions (statutory duty for AfC from day 6) - AfC will continue to

procure the places for permanent exclusion directly at the same rate of £14,850 per

place. We estimate that up to 20 full time equivalent places are needed per year for

Kingston children. The place funding (£10,000) will be paid as standard regardless of

whether the places are filled and the top up will be aligned to actual usage.

Following academisation the place funding will be paid directly by the DfE rather

than AfC. AfC will agree the children placed and any year on year changes to the top

up amount directly with MO.

Respite / Dual Registered (no statutory duty but support early intervention and

prevention) - Secondary schools value the respite support offered and discussions

over the years would indicate that they would be in favour of maintaining this

support. It is important that Malden Oaks is accountable to the individual schools

who use those respite places for the service delivered and the associated cost. This

10

https://maldenoaks.org/gallery/referrals-medical-tuition/

supports our commitment to preventing escalation of needs and supporting schools

to sustain mainstream placements where possible. To support consistency in

funding for Malden Oaks it is proposed that the funding is paid as follows:

● The place funding (£10,000 per place) for 20-25 full time equivalent respite

places will be removed from the High Needs Block and paid directly to MO

by the ESFA in line with the funding mechanism for all academy schools. The

place funding will be paid regardless of the level of usage which could

fluctuate year to year. It is proposed that the number of places be annually

reviewed by the High Needs Block Subgroup to support alignment to actual

usage. The estimated need, and therefore the amount that is recommended

to be funded next year is 20 full time equivalent places compared to 25 that

are being funded this year. The group is asked to make a recommendation

on the number of places to be included in the high needs return.

● MO charge schools directly for any top up element agreed for individual

respite placements. The current rate is £4,850 per full time equivalent

annual place. In the past AfC has recouped the AWPU from the schools

using the places equivalent to £9.98 per session or or for a full time

equivalent place at KS4 £5,715 and KS3 £5,215. It is proposed that this

amount is no longer recovered from schools so that it can be repurposed by

schools to contribute to the direct payment for the top up. Mo can agree

the session price with schools and may wish to adjust the rate to ensure full

recovery of costs.

5. Early Intervention Support Service (EISS) / Outreach

5.1.1. Since 2018 the model for secondary school inclusion support has been evolving in

response to school referrals, needs identified and in ongoing discussion with

secondary school leaders. The EISS was established in 2019 and the team now

supports the following services:

● Single access point via the Early Advice and Intervention Panel. This Panel offersschools support from a wider team of inclusion specialists including EISS, theASC/SLCN specialists and the outreach teams from our local specialist schools andSRPs.

● Support for pupils on transition from KS2 to KS3 using the Higher Needs TransitionProgramme and offering focused support for schools on those pupils identified asmost vulnerable.

● A Return to School Teacher Resource Pack to support pupils mental health for everyyear group post COVID lockdown

● Primary alternative Provision - The Bridge - for pupils in need of respite orenrichment around their social, emotional and mental health needs,

● Employs specialist teachers who offer advice and guidance, support multi agencywork and signpost schools to internal AFC support options

● Offers a programme of mentoring to support those pupils in KS3 and KS4 who arebecoming disengaged from education

11

● Offers 1:1 coaching sessions for school staff to upskill their understanding of workingwith pupils with challenging behaviour

● Offers intervention audits to support schools to track and understand the supportthey have in place for pupils who are struggling in their mainstream setting.

● Employs Specialist teachers for ASD/SLCN to support pupils in KS3 and KS4.

5.1.2. New initiatives in response to senior leader requests

● An alternative curriculum offer for pupils at KS3 and KS4 that is overseen by the EISSbut managed by AFC Youth Services to help sustain pupils in their mainstreamplacements

● A catalogue of quality assured alternative provision providers who schools can liaisewith direct or through the EISS to support pupils in KS3 and KS4 in their mainstreamplacements

● A systemic level support aimed at supporting behaviour policy and itsimplementation

5.1.3. Take up of the service has been good and Appendix A provides additional data

regarding usage and types of need supported. The cost of the service is as follows:

Role Annual £

Advisory Teacher 54,000

Specialist Behaviour Support Outreach 32,000


SEND Coordinator (not EISS) 21,200

The Bridge 62,700

Total 201,900

5.1.4. Implications of reducing funding for this area:

The EISS has been funded via transfers from the schools lock in the past. The Schools

Forum expressed a reluctance to fund this service beyond 2021/22 when it was

considered for thai years budget. This paper discusses the impact of reducing the

service to inform schools in making a decision this year.

5.1.5. Bridge Impact 20-21:

The Bridge - 6 places per day offered - children attend on 2 or 3 day placements. Overthe year: 24 referrals received 14 LBR, 10 RBK; 22 pupils attended. Impact: 100%reduction in FTE; 89% average attendance; 100% positive feedback fromparents/pupils and schools; Most pupils attended as SEN respite (awaiting EHCP orchange or placement); Outcomes: 6 moved to Special schools, 4 sustained inmainstream. Sept 2021 - over number - 14 children attending. 10 RBK, 4 LBR; 9 ofwhich have EHCP or pending, 3 are likely to apply.

12

Academy schools would lose access to The Bridge and would need to pay more than

the £50 per day charge if they wanted to use it to support children. The new charge

would likely be in the region of £100.

5.1.6. EISS Impact 20-21:

EAIP - SEMH mostly: Total referrals for year - 460, Increase year on year (2019-2020 = 349).

290 were for individual children (some children require multiple pieces of work which are

logged as separate referrals). Primary 175 Secondary 115. Kingston 140 Richmond 150.

Those deemed complex = 14% of total. Risk of PEX - 35% of total.

Favourable data for our primary schools when compared to Outer London and National:

2019/20Barnet Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00

Suspension (rate) 0.20England Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.02

Suspension (rate) 1.00Kingston upon Thames Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00

Suspension (rate) 0.43Merton Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00

Suspension (rate) 0.58Outer London Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00

Suspension (rate) 0.54Richmond upon Thames Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00

Suspension (rate) 0.18Sutton Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.02

Suspension (rate) 0.81Windsor and Maidenhead Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.03

Suspension (rate) 0.94

Favourable data for secondary schools when compared to neighbours and national:

2019/20

Barnet

Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.06


England



Kingston upon Thames



Merton



Outer London



13

Richmond upon Thames



Sutton



Windsor and Maidenhead



5.1.7. 2020-2021 School Feedback Responses

After every referral is closed, a Google feedback form is sent to schools to collect feedback on the

work that the EISS have carried out. In this academic year we had:

● 58 responses from school staff

● 39 different schools across Kingston and Richmond

● 32 Primary schools and 7 Secondary schools

Schools were asked to rate responses from 0-5, with 0 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The

responses were then converted into %

Feedback criteria Score Score in %

What was the speed of response to your referral? 280 / 290 97%

Please state the ease of engagement with the EISS team 280 / 290 97%

How effective was the advice, guidance, support or training

provided?269 / 280 96%

Would you use the service again? 100% 100%

How likely would it be that you would recommend the service to

others?280 / 290 97%

Comments from school staff in feedback

‘The training was delivered with exactly the right content to match the needs of the school at

this current time. Staff were fully engaged with the course facilitators and the presentation

was delivered with humour and a serious tone in all the right places’. PI Training, 2020 - East

Sheen Primary School

‘We were very impressed. The service responded quickly to our referral. X gave excellent advice

and well written VSR's. She was friendly and happy to engage with the children and staff.

Overall a very positive experience. We will be utilising the service again’. - Coombe Hill Infants,

2021

‘Thank you for your timely and insightful intervention- it will make a huge difference for one of

our families’ - HHJS 2021

14

‘I found this consultation incredibly helpful. It was good to get advice and direction for what to

do next. It was excellent to think about other services who could help. I felt really listened to

and my opinion and professional assessment of the situation was valued. Thank you so much’. -

CCNM 2021

‘Great collaboration’ - Teddington School 2021

‘Thank you to X for her time, advice and support’. - The Kingston Academy 2021

5.1.8 Referrals to the EISS come through a weekly panel named: Early Advice and Information

Panel [EAIP]: Reduced access to the Advisory Teachers [currently 1.5 dedicated to RBK, this

would reduce to 0.5] who provide level 1 support: advice and guidance: currently an

Advisory Teacher is placed in a secondary school 1 day a month; over the telephone

consultations; solution focused coaching; advocates on complex cases where there is multi

agency involvement, Managing of Alternative Curriculum Pathway [Y7-8 Believe; Y 9 Boost]

and these pathways would then need to be managed directly by schools with the youth

service, currently the ATs co-ordinate these programmes.

5.1.8 The Schools Forum has set money aside to support an Early Intervention Outreach offer for

the past two financial years. To continue delivering this service to Kingston schools a further

£201,900 will be needed in 2022/23. The value of this offer is that it is available to all schools

with resources being prioritised towards need in any given year.

5.1.9 There was detailed discussion about whether to continue funding this service last year and

AfC officers have considered a number of funding routes including reducing education

support elsewhere to re-prioritise funding, charging schools who access the service,

establishing an SLA that could be signed by all schools across the borough to ensure a

continued borough based approach and continuation of the transfer from the Schools Block

subject to Schools Forum approval. Given the continued reductions in funding for central

education services outside of the DSG it was not possible to identify an alternative service

that could cease to pay for the EISS next year. The SLA options are problematic as neither the

Local Authority or Schools Forum can require schools to sign up and the value of the offer is

that all schools can access it. The consultation therefore sought views on continuing to fund

the offer via a schools block transfer.

5.1.10 Schools Forum are asked to agree whether they wish to agree a Schools Block transfer to

support this service and if not whether Forum wishes to make other recommendations

regarding the funding. 68% of primary schools and 17% of secondary schools who

responded to the consultation were in support of the proposal. A further 14% of primary

schools and 50% of secondary schools responded were not in support with 18% of primary

schools and 33% of secondary schools responding ‘not sure’. Overall 50% were in support,

26.5% were not in support and 23.5% were not sure.

6. Contacts

15

Sheldon SnashallAssociate Director of Pupil SupportAchieving for [email protected]

Charis PenfoldDirector for Education ServicesAchieving for [email protected]

16

EISS Data for Kingston Schools Forum 5/10/21 Appendix A

Referrals to Early Advice and Intervention Panel (includes EISS and ASD Advisory Team)

EAIP Referrals: Kingston

Individual pupil referrals (UPN) 109

School 4

Referrals 127

Total referrals to EISS by year

YEAR RBK

2014-2015 7

2015-2016 24

2016-2017 53

2017-2018 54

2018-2019 105

2019-2020 176

2020-2021 220

Total referrals to EISS by UPN (individual pupils)

YEAR Primary Secondary Total

2020-2021 83 57 140

Referrals by Key Stage

EYFS 7

KS1 20

KS2 107

KS3 52

KS4 34

Total 220

Level of SEN Primary Secondary

EHCP 20 5

SENK 44 25

PENDING 2 0

NONE 17 27

Total 83 57

Referrals by SEN Primary Secondary

None 17 28

SEMH 26 12

ASD 15 9

SLCN 8 0

ADHD 4 4

SPLD 4 2

MLD 3 0

NSA 2 0

OTH 1 1

PD 0 0

HI 1 0

LD 1 0

Attachment 1 0

SLD 1

Total 83 57

At risk of PEX

Year RBK Total cases % of total

2018-2019 39 105 37%

2019-2020 111 176 63%

2020-2021 56 210* 27%

17

*Total cases = 220 less 10 school referrals =210

Referrals by Wave

Wave 1 Early Intervention (consults) 130

Wave 2 Outreach 55

Wave 3 Bespoke Programmes 15

Wave 4 Alternative Provision 20

Outcomes: Leavers (UPN) Primary Secondary

Moved out of borough 4 1

Moved to special School 4 3

Sustained in placement 51 42

Move to SRP 0 0

Total cases closed: 59 46

The Bridge Primary Alternative Provision

Bridge Referrals: Borough Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total

RESPITE Kingston 1 3 3 2 9

ENRICHMENT Kingston 4 1 2 0 7

The Bridge outcomes: Kingston

Moved to Special School 3

Sustained in mainstream 2

BOOST Year 9 Alternative Provision referrals (Summer 2021)

BOOST: Ham

Coombe Boy's School 1

The Kingston Academy 3

Wellbeing coach - (offered to pilot schools free of charge)

No of pupils No. of Sessions

Year 7 Year 8

Chessington 12 12 9

Coombe Boys' 24 0 10

Impact 93% of pupils believed that physical activity benefited their wellbeing by the end of the programme.

COVID Support

SchoolTotal hours of

support:

Chessington School 4

Coombe Boys' 6

The Hollyfield School 13.25

Richard Challoner 8.75

Tolworth Girls' 8.5

Total: 40.5

18

REPORT TO: Kingston Schools Forum ITEM 6

REPORT FROM: Achieving for Children


SUBJECT: 2022/23 Budget

1. Purpose of the report

1.1. To update Schools Forum on the indicative position regarding the 2022/23 DedicatedSchools Grant, including;

● To update schools on the removal of Non- Domestic Rates (NDR) funding via theSchool Budget Share and the discontinuation of the maintained schools de-delegatedcontingency budget.

● To agree a growth fund budget for 2022/23.

1.2. To update Schools Forum on the results of the second consultation with schools;

● Safeguarding Children Partnership Training- Maintained Schools – De-delegation- Academies – Service Level Agreement

● Continuation of Early Intervention Outreach Support● Continuation of Targeted High Needs funding● Block Transfer to support continuing high needs education pressures● Migration to the National Funding Formula

2. Recommendations

2.1. Forum notes the current indicative position of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and theSchools Block, that this is likely to be impacted by the autumn school census data, therecoupment of Business Rates funding and the allocation of any growth funding to theBorough.

2.2. Maintained schools representatives note that the contingency de-delegation budget may notbe required in 2022/23 if the DfE implements changes to the way that school’s Business Ratesare allocated.

2.3. Schools Forum are asked whether they would like to recommend to the Council that:

● The lump sum is maintained at the current level of £175,000 or brought in line with theNFF at £133,480.95

● The MFG rate is to be set at +0.5% for the financial year 2022/23.

19

2.4. Schools Forum are asked to approve a budget of £200k for the Growth Fund in 2022/23. Anyunspent funds will be redistributed to schools.

2.5. Maintained school representatives vote on whether they wish to agree to the creation of anew de-delegated item with a total budget of £8,835 to support access to training from theKingston and Richmond Safeguarding Children's Partnership (KRSCP). Academy schools voteon whether they wish to formally write to all academies to recommend that all academyschools sign up to an SLA with a total value across academy schools of £9,780.

2.6. Forum considers and votes on whether they wish to fund the continuation of an EarlyIntervention Support Service (EISS) funded via a Schools Block transfer of £201,900 and if notwhether they wish to recommend an alternative funding mechanism.

2.7. Forum votes on whether to continue to have a Targeted High Needs Fund and the value of thatfund.

2.8. Forum votes on whether they wish to approve the transfer of additional Schools Block fundsup to 0.5% of the allowable transfer from the schools block to the High Needs Block (includingany other transfers)

3. Background

3.1. The Government has made a number of announcements regarding funding for 2022/23, theseare:● Implementation of the National Funding Formula (NFF) has been deferred again and

2022/23 will be a ‘soft’ year with regards to the funding formula.

● The Department for Education (DfE) have consulted on the future implementation ofthe NFF but have yet to release the result of the consultation.

● A minimum per pupil rate for Primary pupils has been confirmed for 2022/23 at£4,265 from £4,180 in 2021/22.

● A minimum per pupil rate for Secondary pupils has been confirmed for 2022/23 as£5,525 from £5,415 in 2021/22.

● The Guaranteed increase in per pupil funding has remained unchanged as a range of0.5% to 2.0%.

● National Funding Formula rates for 2022/23 have been published as attached to thisreport as attachment A.

● The historical element of the Central Schools Services Block has been reduced by20%. This follows a similar reduction in 2021/22.

● The methodology for the payment and collection of Rates to/from schools has beenchanged. As Rates are cost neutral to schools the impact is minimal. MaintainedSchools will cease to receive NDR funding via their school budget share but will notbe expected to pay for rates either.

20

3.2. Since the Forum last met, a consultation has been issued to all schools. The consultationsought views on a number of funding options. A copy of the consultation is attached atappendices B and C.

3.3. The results of the consultation are attached in attachment D. 34 schools responded which is aresponse rate of 69.38%.

4. Schools Block

4.1. The Department for Education (DfE) previously released the indicative figures for the DSGfunding allocation for Kingston. Boroughs are not yet funded under a National FundingFormula (NFF), but remain funded using a combination of per pupil rates and historic funding.

4.2. All authorities receive growth funding based on the previous year’s growth in pupil numberswithin localised areas of the authority defined by the Office of National Statistics (middle-layersuper output area – MSOA). The DfE has not included indicative figures for the growthelement of the Schools Block in any of the information released to date.

4.3. It is expected that in December the DfE will release the 2022/23 Authority ProForma Tool(APT) along with the final settlement for the financial year 2022/23.

4.4. The indicative allocation for the Schools Block provided by the DfE was £120.330m for2022/23.

The schools block is made up of three parts:

● Primary unit of funding allocation● Secondary unit of funding allocation● Premises allocations - based on historic spend and a lagged growth allocation.

The latest allocation issued by the DfE does not include an allocation for growth funding. Theprotection of the growth allocation has been removed in 2022/23 and so it is possible thatthere could be a year on year reduction of up to £0.750m if the DfE assesses that growth is notneeded. The actual change will be confirmed as part of the December grant settlement.

4.5. It is likely that the DfE will reduce the final Schools Block allocation to recoup the expectedbusiness rates value as this will cease to form part of the school budget share in 2022/23. Thiscould mean a reduction of circa £2.1m from the indicative Schools Block allocation.

4.6. Schools Forum should note that when Business Rates are removed from the School BudgetShare there will not be a requirement for a contingency budget. This will mean for maintainedschools the agreed de-delegation budget for contingencies of £71.8k will not now be required.

21

Migration to the National Funding Formula

4.7. Kingston’s local formula does not currently utilise all the National Funding Formula (NFF)factors. The local formula still distributes a higher lump sum than the national funding formularate.

4.8. Schools have been consulted on whether or not to move fully to the national funding formularates by reducing its lump sum to 133,480.95 in 2022/23. Full details can be found inattachment B and D. 50% of schools who responded said they wanted a lump sum of £175k(41% wanted it set at the NFF rate of £133k and 9% were ‘not sure’).

4.9. The Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG) has been used in the past to protect schools fromsignificant year on year per pupil funding reductions whilst transitioning those schools on tothe local formula over time. To comply with the DFE guidance the local MFG rate must be setat between +0.5% and +2.0%, meaning that a school must receive at least this increase incalculated per pupil rate funding compared to the preceding year.

4.10. It is recommended that the MFG rate remains at +0.5% for the financial year 2022/23 toensure that funding is allocated in the fairest possible way and that schools receiving MFGprotection continue to transition on to the local formula.

4.11. Schools Forum are asked whether they would like to recommend to the Council that:

● The lump sum is maintained at the current level of £175,000 or brought in line with theNFF at £133,480.95

● The MFG rate is to be set at +0.5% for the financial year 2022/23.

Growth Fund

4.12. Funding for the Growth fund is retained centrally before the formula is calculated. The GrowthFund can be used only for the purposes of supporting growth in pre-16 pupil numbers to meetbasic need, to support additional classes needed to meet the infant class size regulation and tomeet the costs of new schools. The Fund must be used on the same basis for the benefit ofboth maintained schools and academies.

4.13. The estimated budget required to provide for growth in 2022/23 is:

Funding Type No Budget(£)

Bulge Classes 2 £150,000

Bulge Class protection £45,000

Contingency £5,000

Total £200,000

4.14. Schools Forum are asked to approve a budget of £200k for the Growth Fund in 2022/23. Anyunspent funds will be redistributed to schools.

22

5. Block Transfers

5.1. Schools Forum can vote to transfer up to 0.5% from the Schools Block to the High Needs Blockto provide some additional funding for high needs education pressures next year. If eitherSchools Forum or the Council wish to transfer more than 0.5% then a decision from theSecretary of State is required. In addition if the Council and Schools Forum do not agree on thelevel of transfer the Secretary of State will provide a decision on the level of transfer that isallowable.

Early Intervention Support Service

5.2 The Schools Forum has set money aside to support an Early Intervention Outreach offer for thepast two financial years. To continue delivering this service to Kingston schools a further£201,900 will be needed in 2022/23. The value of this offer is that it is available to all schoolswith resources being prioritised towards need in any given year. There was detailed discussionabout whether to continue funding this service last year and AfC officers have considered anumber of funding routes including reducing education support elsewhere to re-prioritisefunding, charging schools who access the service, establishing an SLA that could be signed byall schools across the borough to ensure a continued borough based approach andcontinuation of the transfer from the Schools Block subject to Schools Forum approval. Giventhe continued reductions in reductions in funding for central education services outside of theDSG it was not possible to identify an alternative service that could cease to pay for the EISSnext year. The SLA options are problematic as neither the Local Authority or Schools Forumcan require schools to sign up and the value of the offer is that all schools can access it. Theconsultation therefore sought views on continuing to fund the offer via a schools blocktransfer.

5.3 The Early Intervention Support service model for secondary school inclusion has been evolvingin response to school referrals, needs identified and in ongoing discussion with secondaryschool leaders. The EISS was established in 2019 and the team now supports the followingservices:

● Single access point via the Early Advice and Intervention Panel.● Support for pupils on transition from KS2 to KS3 using the Higher Needs Transition

Programme.● A Return to School Teacher Resource Pack to support pupils' mental health for every

year group post COVID lockdown.● Primary alternative Provision - The Bridge.● Employs specialist teachers who offer advice and guidance, support multi agency work

and signpost schools to internal AFC support options.● Offers a programme of mentoring to support those pupils in KS3 and KS4 who are

becoming disengaged from education.● Offers 1:1 coaching sessions for school staff to upskill their understanding of working

with pupils with challenging behaviour.● Offers intervention audits to support schools to track and understand the support they

have in place for pupils who are struggling in their mainstream setting.● Employs Specialist teachers for ASD/SLCN to support pupils in KS3 and KS4.

23

New initiatives in response to senior leader requests

● An alternative curriculum offer for pupils at KS3 and KS4 that is overseen by the EISSbut managed by AFC Youth Services to help sustain pupils in their mainstreamplacements

● A catalogue of quality assured alternative provision providers who schools can liaisewith direct or through the EISS to support pupils in KS3 and KS4 in their mainstreamplacements

● A systemic level support aimed at supporting behaviour policy and its implementation

5.4 The cost of the service is as follows:

Role Annual Cost(£)





The Bridge 62,700

Total 201,900

5.5 Schools Forum are asked to agree whether they wish to agree a Schools Block transfer tosupport this service and if not whether Forum wishes to make other recommendationsregarding the funding. 68% of primary schools and 17% of secondary schools who respondedto the consultation were in support of the proposal. A further 14% of primary schools and 50%of secondary schools responded were not in support with 18% of primary schools and 33% ofsecondary schools responding ‘not sure’. Overall 50% were in support, 26.5% were not insupport and 23.5% were not sure.

Targeted High Needs Fund

5.6 The Targeted High Needs Fund provides additional support to schools where there are adisproportionate number of pupils with a type of Special Educational Needs (SEN) that is notable to be reflected in the local formula, even where the costs of meeting their needs are lessthan the £6,000 threshold. The value of the fund is £300,000 in 2021/22 and the money isringfenced and fully paid out to eligible schools. The recent consultation asked schoolswhether they wished to continue to have a Targeted High Needs Fund and the preferred valueof the fund. Further information is provided in appendices B, C and D about the background tothe fund. The following schools have received money from the fund this year:

24

Schools Forum is asked to vote on:

● Should Kingston continue to have a Targeted High Needs Fund? (68% of schools whoresponded to the consultation voted in favour, 17% were not in favour and 15%responded ‘not sure’)

● What should the value of the fund be - £100,000, £200,000, £300,000? (31% of schoolswho responded to the consultation supported a fund of £300,000, 38% were in favor of£200,000, 10% were in favour on £100,000 and 21% were ‘not sure’))

Transfer from the Schools Block to High Needs Block of upto 0.5%

5.7 Schools Forum can vote to transfer up to 0.5% or £601,600 from the Schools Block to the HighNeeds Block to provide some additional funding for high needs education pressures next year.Schools Forum is asked whether they wish to approve a transfer of up to 0.5% including otherapproved transfers to support high needs education pressures. The indicative amount is£99,700, this is subject to change following the final allocation for 2022/23.

Funding for training delivered via the Kingston and Richmond Safeguarding ChildrenPartnership (KRSCP)

5.8 A request has been received from the KRSCP for schools to consider setting aside funding eachyear to support safeguarding training delivered to schools. At present the partnership invoicesschools for training and they have requested whether maintained schools would agree to ade-delegated item and whether academies would agree to fund via an SLA.

5.9 Maintained school representatives are asked to vote on whether they wish to agree to thecreation of a new de-delegated item with a total budget of £8,835 to support access totraining from the Kingston and Richmond Safeguarding Children's Partnership (KRSCP).

5.10 Academy schools vote on whether they wish to formally write to all academies to recommendthat all academy schools sign up to an SLA with a total value across academy schools of£9,780.

6. Central School Services Block (CSSB)

25

6.1. The Schools Forum agreed the budgets for the CSSB at its last meeting in September.

6.2. The authority is yet to receive the 2022/23 costs for the centrally negotiated Copyright licensesfees.

6.3. The indicative value of the Historical element of the CSSB is £156,160 as reported to Forum inSeptember. This includes a 20% reduction on the 2021/22 figure.

6.4. The final allocation for the ongoing element of the CSSB is dependent on the final estimatedpupil numbers. At the time of writing, no data is available from the autumn schools censusregarding pupil numbers. The indicative funding for 2022/23 is £921,733. Forum will receive anupdate on the final allocation at January Forum.

7. High Needs Block

7.1. There have been no further updates regarding the High Needs Block allocations for 2022/23since Forum met in September.

7.2. The quarter two Safety Valve Agreement Update Report was sent to the ESFA on 17 December.There is a good level of confidence that the full additional £5million in safety valve funding canbe claimed this year due to the progress that is being made in implementing the SEND FuturesPlan. A further £5 million will also be made available next year subject to successfulimplementation of the SEND Futures Plan.

7.3. The High Needs Return (HNR) was submitted to the ESFA on 12 November 2021. This returndetermines the amount of recoupment the ESFA need in order to pay academies, free schoolsand further education providers directly. Any increases/decreases take place in September2022 for Pre 16 and August 2022 for post 16. There is one small change to the HNR process for2022/23. The ESFA have introduced a deadline for receiving deeds of variations signed by atrust, where a change in the age range at academies, or pre-16 place numbers for specialeducational needs (SEN) units at mainstream academies have been agreed but were notfunded in 2021 to 2022.

8. Consultation Response

8.1. In October schools were consulted for a second time on a number of funding issues for2022/23, these are as follows:

8.2.● Safeguarding Children Partnership Training

- Maintained Schools – De-delegation- Academies – Service Level Agreement

● Continuation of Early Intervention Outreach Support● Continuation of Targeted High Needs funding● Block Transfer to support continuing high needs education pressures● Migration to the National Funding Formula

26

8.3. Schools were consulted on the funding of the Kingston and Richmond Safeguarding ChildrenPartnership – Safeguarding Training. This funding is split between maintained schools andacademies. Maintained schools are asked to provide funding via a de-delegation element andacademies via a Service Level Agreement (SLA). 89% of maintained schools were in support ofde-delegation (11% were not in favour) and 67% of academies were in support of a servicelevel agreement (27% were not in favour and 6% were ‘not sure’) . Full details of the responsesdetailed in attachment D.

8.4. Schools were consulted on the continuation of the Early Intervention Support Service andOutreach funding. The requested budget is for £201,900. 68% of primary schools and 17% ofsecondary schools who responded to the consultation were in support of the proposal. Afurther 14% of primary schools and 50% of secondary schools responded were not in supportwith 18% of primary schools and 33% of secondary schools responding ‘not sure’. Overall 50%were in support, 26.5% were not in support and 23.5% were not sure. Full details of theresponses are detailed in attachment D.

8.5. Schools were consulted on the continuation of the Targeted High Needs funding. 68% ofschools were in support of a targeted high needs fund, 17% were not in favour and 15% were‘not sure’. 31% supported the continuation at 300k, 38% supported £200k, 10% supported£100k, and 21% were ‘not sure’. 52% wanted to switch to using April as a snapshot for thenumber of ECHPs (24% wanted it to remain as September and 24% were ‘not sure’). Fulldetails of the responses are detailed in attachment D.

8.6. Schools Forum can vote to transfer up to 0.5% from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block.The potential budgets referred to above for Outreach and Targeted High needs are included inthis allowance. The consultation asked schools if they supported the transfer of the remainingfunds up to the 0.5% level from the schools block to the high needs block. 21% of schoolssupported the transfer, 50% were not in favour and 29% were ‘not sure’. Full details of theresponses are detailed in attachment D.

9. Next Steps

9.1. The council will be considering the 2022/23 DSG funding budget over the coming months andwill formally consider and agree a budget in February 2022. This budget will be informed bythe recommendations and decisions of the Schools Forum.

10. Attachments

Attachment A - NFF Rates 2022-23Attachment B - RBK Consultation - Schools Funding 2022-23 - October 2021Attachment C - RBK Consultation 2 tableAttachment D - RBK Consultation 2 results

11. Contacts

Louise DuttonManagement AccountantAchieving for Children

27

[email protected]

28

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix A - Formula factors

Factor Description Factor Type2021-22 NFF Base Values

2021-22 NFF Adjusted

Value

Actual 2021-22 Local Factor Value

2022-23 NFF Base Values

2022-23 NFF Adjusted

ValueBasic Entitlement Primary AWPU 3,123.00 3,432.24 3,409.24 3,217.00 3,540.05

KS3 AWPU 4,404.00 4,840.08 4,807.66 4,536.00 4,991.51

KS4 AWPU 4,963.00 5,454.44 5,417.89 5,112.00 5,625.35

FSM6 Pri 575.00 631.94 631.94 590.00 649.25

Sec 840.00 923.18 923.18 865.00 951.86

FSM Pri 460.00 505.55 505.55 470.00 517.20

Sec 460.00 505.55 505.55 470.00 517.20

IDACI A Pri 620.00 681.39 681.39 640.00 704.27

Sec 865.00 950.65 950.65 890.00 979.37

IDACI B Pri 475.00 522.03 522.03 490.00 539.21

Sec 680.00 747.33 747.33 700.00 770.29

IDACI C Pri 445.00 489.06 489.06 460.00 506.19

Sec 630.00 692.38 692.38 650.00 715.27

IDACI D Pri 410.00 450.60 450.60 420.00 462.18

Sec 580.00 637.43 637.43 595.00 654.75

IDACI E Pri 260.00 285.75 285.75 270.00 297.11

Sec 415.00 456.09 456.09 425.00 467.68

IDACI F Pri 215.00 236.29 236.29 220.00 242.09

Sec 310.00 340.70 340.70 320.00 352.13

Low Prior Attainment Pri 1,095.00 1,203.43 1,203.43 1,130.00 1,243.47

Sec 1,660.00 1,824.37 1,824.37 1,710.00 1,881.72

EAL Pri 550.00 604.46 604.46 565.00 621.74

Sec 1,485.00 1,632.04 1,632.04 1,530.00 1,683.64

Lump Sum Pri 117,800.00 129,464.56 175,000.00 121,300.00 133,480.95

Sec 117,800.00 129,464.56 175,000.00 121,300.00 133,480.95

Sparsity Pri 45,000.00 49,455.90 0* 55,000.00 60,523.10

Sec 70,000.00 76,931.40 0* 80,000.00 88,033.60

Mobility Pri 900.00 989.12 989.12 925.00 1,017.89

Sec 1,290.00 1,417.74 1,417.74 1,330.00 1,463.56

IDACI - Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index

*Not used by Kingston

29

Kingston Schools Funding 2022/23 -

Consultation 2

Purpose of the Consultation

This is the second consultation in relation to schools funding for 2022/23. Your Schools Forum

representatives will use your consultation responses to inform how they vote on the 2022/23

funding distribution methodology at the next Schools Forum in November 2021. The

consultation responses will be anonymised and published as part of the Schools Forum

papers.

This consultation seeks the views of schools on four areas:

1. Kingston and Richmond Safeguarding Children Partnership - Safeguarding Training

2. The continuation of the SEND Outreach Team and associated funding from the

Schools Block

3. The continuation of a Targeted High Needs budget and associated funding from the

Schools Block

4. Transfer from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block

5. Whether to migrate fully to the National Funding Formula in 2022/23

To help inform your response to the consultation a brief explanation of each question has

been provided. It is important that you understand what is being asked and consider your

consultation response carefully as the responses will be used to inform decisions about how

money will be allocated to schools next year and this will impact on the cash that your school

will have to spend.

If you would like to discuss the consultation further please feel free to contact your Schools

Forum representative or:

Safeguarding Training

Elisabeth Major

[email protected]

SEND Outreach Team

Sheldon Snashall

[email protected]

Targeted High Needs Fund

Scott Gardner

[email protected]

Migration to the National Funding Formula

Louise Dutton

31

[email protected]

Schools are asked to complete and return the consultation document by midnight on the 5th

November 2021. Only one submission per school can be accepted.

The information collected about you in this survey is collected in compliance with data

protection legislation. The information is held securely by Achieving for Children for the

specific purpose of this survey and will not be shared with other agencies or organisations

without seeking your explicit consent. For more detail, please read our privacy policy here:

https://www.achievingforchildren.org.uk/privacy-notice/

32

School Details

1. Name of school

2. Name of Trust

3. Full Name

4. Position at School / Trust

33

Kingston and Richmond Safeguarding Children Partnership

- Safeguarding Training

There is a statutory requirement that each county or borough has a Local Children

Safeguarding Partnership. This has been in place for some time, as required, with individual

LSCBs being established (Local Safeguarding Children Boards) in Kingston and Richmond,

who merged in 2014. Statutory requirements changed through Working Together 2018, and in

October 2019 our safeguarding arrangements were altered, as published by KRSCP

(Kingston and Richmond Safeguarding Children Partnership) with local Statutory Partners

taking over the leadership.

Schools, colleges and early years settings are some of the relevant agencies defined in the

arrangements with a statutory obligation to work together to keep children safe.

KRSCP has a long standing and strong working relationship with “Education”. Whilst Working

Together 2018 gave provision for three Statutory Partners (Police, CCG, Local Authority), our

local arrangements made “Education” a fourth equal partner in leading the local Partnership.

“Education” has been represented in the Partnership arrangements via the Strategic

Leadership Group (SLG) by Sophie McGeoch, Headteacher Meadlands Primary and Sophie

Cavanagh, Headteacher Kingston Academy from October 2019.

“Education” is also represented in our Subgroups by members of AfC, Rosemary Hafeez,

Peter Cowley, Ranbir Marway, and Sheldon Snashall; and Sam Axbey, Headteacher of

Malden Oaks, Holly Abdelghafar, Kingston College, Jason Jones, Richmond upon Thames

College, Suzanne Parrott, Headteacher, Virtual School, Aisha Bicknell School Governor and

KRSCP Lay Member, and Alistair Bond, Headteacher Park Hill Prep, Kingston.

KRSCP provides assurance of local safeguarding by support of statutory Section 175/157

(Section 11) self evaluations, multi-agency policies and procedures, DSL Forums, case

reviews, many of which involve “Education”, oversight of local work to keep children safe,

learning and development sessions, free access to elearning, a dispute resolution process,

and multi-agency quality assurance of local engagement with children, including schools. Lucy

MacArthur, Education Safeguarding Coordinator is employed by the Partnership Team and

works term time in engaging “Education” in safeguarding, including in termly DSL and Early

Years’ Forums.

Currently, 69 local schools and 33 early years settings are participating in a DfE grant funded

project to teach peer supervision skills to DSLs in order to strengthen their support in dealing

with complex safeguarding work. This funding was won by KRSCP and the peer supervision

support is being coordinated by the Team. This will have a positive impact not only on local

children, but staff wellbeing and retention.

Statutory safeguarding training provided by the Partnership is mandatory for those working in

the local boroughs, as it covers local multi-agency working arrangements. It also provides a

sound opportunity for the workforce to network. School staff receive regular, mandatory

Partnership safeguarding training as outlined by Keeping Children Safe in Education 2021,

including the Level 3 and Level 3 refresher multi-agency training, and around other additional

themes such as Domestic Abuse, neglect and Contextual Safeguarding.

34

We provide bespoke INSET training sessions for schools and support schools to deliver their

own INSET training via regularly updated safeguarding training materials and sessions to

support DSLs with safeguarding training delivery.

The Partnership Team’s staffing was reviewed by Statutory Partners in March 2021, led by Ian

Dodds, and involved a consultation with the Strategic Leadership Group (SLG). KRSCP

annual costs include staffing, case reviews, commissioning of multi-agency learning and

development, statutory Independent Scrutiny, website maintenance, and administration of

working streams. There is a planned Partnership expenditure of £474,000 this year. The team

is hosted by Richmond Council.

In Kingston and Richmond, the Partnership’s work is funded by local Partners. Each Local

Authority contributes £140,000 per annum, the CCG £77,000 and the Police via MOPAC,

£10,000. To date, Schools and Colleges have contributed to our funding via paying for the

statutory multi-agency safeguarding training they attend. Due to the funding received from

Partners, all other agencies access the funded training without charge.

This proposal relates to a need to standardise our budget and simply access to our training.

There will be no impact on Partnership services or training received by “Education”, and

administration will be reduced as there will be no need to invoice individual schools for training

accessed. The proposed rise in funding from “Education” will also place the sector on a more

equal footing in supporting the Partnership activities in line with other key Partners. For

example, “Education” provides a top splice to Children’s Partnership budgets in LBs Sutton,

Merton and Wandsworth.

Before lockdown, costs were £60 for a half day’s training and £120 for a full day. This was

halved during the pandemic.

In 2018-19, 315 “Education” delegates accessed funded training and contributed £17,000 to

KRSCP; in 2019-20, schools accessed 327 individual funded training sessions and

contributed to the KRSCP budget by £17,775 in paying for that training. This changed as the

COVID-19 pandemic struck and schools accessed our learning and development by a secure

Zoom portal. During this time, we have carried out funded termly virtual DSL Forums, plus

emergency Forums around Domestic Abuse, Mental Health and Everyone’s Invited website in

2020-21, as well as Conferences around Early Help, Journey to School Exclusion and

Domestic Abuse. During 2020-21, aside from the DSL Forums and Conferences, 119 school

delegates accessed KRSCP courses, which contributed £9,645 to the KRSCP budget. It is

envisaged that this figure will rise to pre pandemic levels, as some degree of “normality”

ensues in future.

The proposal is to recoup £18,615 per annum from both academies and maintained schools at

a rate of £0.82 per pupil (subject to change on updated pupil numbers).

For maintained schools it is proposed to recoup £8,835 through de-delegation of their school

budget share.

For Academy Schools it is proposed to recoup £9,780 via a service level agreement with each

school.

Below is the indicative amount each school would contribute.

35

School Pupil

Numbers

Indicative

contribution

(£)

Burlington Junior School 470 386.37

Burlington Infant and Nursery School 350 287.72

Coombe Hill Infant School 268 220.31

Ellingham Primary School 377 309.92

Lime Tree Primary School 370 304.16

Tolworth Junior School 350 287.72

Tolworth Infant and Nursery School 330 271.28

Coombe Hill Junior School 418 343.62

Maple Infants' School 264 217.02

Alexandra School 424 348.56

King Athelstan Primary School 410 337.05

Grand Avenue Primary and Nursery School 617 507.21

Malden Manor Primary and Nursery School 394 323.89

King's Oak Primary School 405 332.94

Lovelace Primary School 563 462.82

Fern Hill Primary School 615 505.57

Christ Church New Malden CofE Primary School 408 335.40

Christ Church CofE Primary School 499 410.21

Malden Parochial CofE Primary School 209 171.81

St Andrew's and St Mark's CofE Junior School 352 289.37

St John's C of E Primary School 203 166.88

St Paul's CofE Primary School 204 167.70

St Paul's CofE Primary School, Kingston Hill 372 305.40

St Matthew's CofE Primary School 397 326.36

St Mary's CofE (Aided) Primary School 185 152.08

Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School 419 344.44

Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Primary School 408 335.40

36

St Joseph's Catholic Primary School 200 164.41

St Luke's CofE Primary School 267 219.49

Chessington School 493 405.28

Castle Hill Primary School 427 351.02

Knollmead Primary School 199 163.59

Green Lane Primary and Nursery School 388 318.96

Latchmere School 855 702.86

Robin Hood Primary and Nursery School 187 153.73

St Agatha's Catholic Primary School 399 328.00

The Kingston Academy 938 771.10

Coombe Girls' School 1,144 940.44

Southborough High School 649 533.52

The Tiffin Girls' School 894 734.93

Tolworth Girls' School and Sixth Form 1,115 916.60

Tiffin School 908 746.43

Richard Challoner School 796 654.36

The Holy Cross School 759 623.95

Coombe Boys' School 817 671.63

The Hollyfield School and Sixth Form Centre 928 762.88

5. What best describes your School??

Option 1 Maintained School

Option 2 Academy School

6. Do you support the delegation of £16,000 (£1.44 per pupil) to support Kingston

and Richmond Safeguarding Children Partnership - Safeguarding Training?

Option 1 Yes

Option 2 No

Option 3 Not Sure

7. Are you in support of a Service Level agreement for all academies to fund

£16,000 (£1.44 per pupil) to support Kingston and Richmond Safeguarding

Children Partnership - Safeguarding Training??

Option 1 Yes

Option 2 No

37

Option 3 Not Sure

38

The continuation of the SEND Outreach Team and

associated funding from the Schools Block

Early Intervention Support Service (EISS) / Outreach

Since 2018 the model for secondary school inclusion support has been evolving in response

to school referrals, needs identified and in ongoing discussion with secondary school leaders.

The EISS was established in 2019 and the team now supports the following services:

● Single access point via the Early Advice and Intervention Panel. This Panel offers schools support from a wider team of inclusion specialists including EISS, the ASC/SLCN specialists and the outreach teams from our local specialist schools and SRPs.

● Support for pupils on transition from KS2 to KS3 using the Higher Needs Transition Programme and offering focused support for schools on those pupils identified as most vulnerable.

● A Return to School Teacher Resource Pack to support pupils mental health for every year group post COVID lockdown

● Primary alternative Provision - The Bridge - for pupils in need of respite or enrichment around their social, emotional and mental health needs,

● Employs specialist teachers who offer advice and guidance, support multi agency work and signpost schools to internal AFC support options

● Offers a programme of mentoring to support those pupils in KS3 and KS4 who are becoming disengaged from education

● Offers 1:1 coaching sessions for school staff to upskill their understanding of working with pupils with challenging behaviour

● Offers intervention audits to support schools to track and understand the support they have in place for pupils who are struggling in their mainstream setting.

● Employs Specialist teachers for ASD/SLCN to support pupils in KS3 and KS4.

New initiatives in response to senior leader requests

● An alternative curriculum offer for pupils at KS3 and KS4 that is overseen by the EISS but managed by AFC Youth Services to help sustain pupils in their mainstream placements

● A catalogue of quality assured alternative provision providers who schools can liaise with direct or through the EISS to support pupils in KS3 and KS4 in their mainstream placements

● A systemic level support aimed at supporting behaviour policy and its implementation

Attached is the estimation that each school would contribute to a SEND Outreach team

depending on the agreed value - this will be updated using October 2021 pupil numbers when

available. In keeping with previous years, schools in Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG)

cannot contribute to this transfer as they are protected.

The cost of the service is as follows:

39

Role Annual £





The Bridge 62,700

Total 201,900

Implications of reducing funding for this area:

The EISS has been funded via transfers from the schools lock in the past. The Schools

Forum expressed a reluctance to fund this service beyond 2021/22 when it was considered for

thai years budget. This paper discusses the impact of reducing the service to inform schools

in making a decision this year.

Bridge Impact 20-21:

The Bridge - 6 places per day offered - children attend on 2 or 3 day placements. Over the year: 24 referrals received 14 LBR, 10 RBK; 22 pupils attended. Impact: 100% reduction in FTE; 89% average attendance; 100% positive feedback from parents/pupils and schools; Most pupils attended as SEN respite (awaiting EHCP or change or placement); Outcomes: 6 moved to Special schools, 4 sustained in mainstream. Sept 2021 - over number - 14 children attending. 10 RBK, 4 LBR; 9 of which have EHCP or pending, 3 are likely to apply. Academy schools would lose access to The Bridge and would need to pay more than the £50

per day charge if they wanted to use it to support children. The new charge would likely be in

the region of £100.

EISS Impact 20-21:

EAIP - SEMH mostly: Total referrals for year - 460, Increase year on year (2019-2020 = 349).

290 were for individual children (some children require multiple pieces of work which are

logged as separate referrals). Primary 175 Secondary 115. Kingston 140 Richmond 150.

Those deemed complex = 14% of total. Risk of PEX - 35% of total.

Favourable data for our primary schools when compared to Outer London and National:

2019/20

Barnet Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00


England Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.02





40

Merton Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00


Outer London Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.00





Sutton Permanent exclusions (rate) 0.02





Favourable data for secondary schools when compared to neighbours and national:

2019/20

Barnet



England






Merton



Outer London






Sutton






2020-2021 School Feedback Responses

After every referral is closed, a Google feedback form is sent to schools to collect feedback on

the work that the EISS have carried out. In this academic year we had:

● 58 responses from school staff

● 39 different schools across Kingston and Richmond

● 32 Primary schools and 7 Secondary schools

41

Schools were asked to rate responses from 0-5, with 0 being the lowest and 5 being the

highest. The responses were then converted into %

Feedback criteria Score Score in %

What was the speed of response to your referral? 280 / 290 97%

Please state the ease of engagement with the EISS team 280 / 290 97%

How effective was the advice, guidance, support or training

provided?

269 / 280 96%

Would you use the service again? 100% 100%

How likely would it be that you would recommend the

service to others?

280 / 290 97%

Comments from school staff in feedback

‘The training was delivered with exactly the right content to match the needs of the school at

this current time. Staff were fully engaged with the course facilitators and the presentation was

delivered with humour and a serious tone in all the right places’. PI Training, 2020 - East

Sheen Primary School

‘We were very impressed. The service responded quickly to our referral. X gave excellent

advice and well written VSR's. She was friendly and happy to engage with the children and

staff. Overall a very positive experience. We will be utilising the service again’. - Coombe Hill

Infants, 2021

‘Thank you for your timely and insightful intervention- it will make a huge difference for one of

our families’ - HHJS 2021

‘I found this consultation incredibly helpful. It was good to get advice and direction for what to

do next. It was excellent to think about other services who could help. I felt really listened to

and my opinion and professional assessment of the situation was valued. Thank you so

much’. - CCNM 2021

‘Great collaboration’ - Teddington School 2021

‘Thank you to X for her time, advice and support’. - The Kingston Academy 2021

Referrals to the EISS come through a weekly panel named: Early Advice and Information

Panel [EAIP]: Reduced access to the Advisory Teachers [currently 1.5 dedicated to RBK, this

would reduce to 0.5] who provide level 1 support: advice and guidance: currently an Advisory

Teacher is placed in a secondary school 1 day a month; over the telephone consultations;

solution focused coaching; advocates on complex cases where there is multi agency

involvement, Managing of Alternative Curriculum Pathway [Y7-8 Believe; Y 9 Boost] and these

42

pathways would then need to be managed directly by schools with the youth service, currently

the ATs co-ordinate these programmes.

8. Do you support the transfer of £201,900 from the Schools Block to High Needs

Block to continue to fund the EISS including the Bridge?

Option 1 - Yes

Option 2 - No

Option 3 - Not Sure

43

The continuation of a Targeted High Needs budget and

associated funding from the Schools Block

Targeted High Needs Fund - background

Kingston currently allocates money to a Targeted High Needs Fund. This fund provides

additional support to schools where there are a disproportionate number of pupils with a type

of Special Educational Needs (SEN) that is not able to be reflected in the local formula, even

where the costs of meeting their needs are less than the £6,000 threshold. In 2021/22

£300,000 was allocated from the schools block for these circumstances.

The criteria agreed for 2021/22 was as follows:

“Schools Forum agreed to a 2021/22 Targeted High Needs budget of £300k in November

2020. The criterion used to distribute this funding is bulleted below:

• Any school that has a number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) over a set

percentage of the school population qualifies for funding. The percentage will be scaled to

ensure the full £300k is distributed.

• In and out borough pupils are included in the calculation.

• Pupils supported by Enhanced Specialist Teacher Arrangement (ESTA) are included in the

calculation

• Specialist Resource Provisions/Units are excluded from the calculation

• Alexandra School opened a new KS2 SRP in September 2021 - therefore EHCP numbers

for this school were based on April 2021 not September 2021 as this caused an unfair

anomaly and reduction in support.

7 schools qualified for this funding in 2021/22. Below are the amounts paid in 2021/22 to each

qualifying school, including the protection factor for Alexandra School agreed by Schools

Forum:

School Amount (£)

Alexandra School 65,860

Chessington CC 49,890

Hollyfield 34,110

King's Oak 50

Kingston Academy 56,280

Lime Tree Primary 13,880

44

Richard Challoner 79,930

Total 300,000

Below are the amounts of funding schools would have received this year if funding levels were

set at £100k; 200k or £300k (existing fund)

School Amount (£100k) Amount (£200k) Amount (£300k)

% Threshold used 3.74% 3.21% 2.78%

Alexandra School 41,450 55,070 65,860

Chessington CC 21,250 37,180 49,890

Hollyfield 0 10,600 34,110

King's Oak 0 0 50

Kingston Academy 2,640 32,480 56,280

Lime Tree Primary 0 4,880 13,880

Richard Challoner 34,550 59,790 79,930

Total 100,000 200,000 300,000

In the past this fund was crucial in addressing the balance created by any funding formula

discrepancies. Three schools heavily relied on this funding to ensure that they received

enough funding to cover upto the first £6ks of EHCPs. Due to increases in funding rates

following decisions to more closely follow the National Funding Formula (NFF), the gap has

lessened for these three schools in the last two years. Therefore a new methodology was

created and approved by SF in 2019. As shown above the THN fund is now spread between

many more schools and therefore the first question is regarding whether there is the need to

continue the transfer of a THN fund.

Attached is the estimation that each school would contribute to a Target High Needs fund

depending on the agreed value - this will be updated using October 2021 pupil numbers when

available. In keeping with previous years, schools in Minimum Funding Guarantee (MFG)

cannot contribute to this transfer as they are protected.

Currently, September is used as the snapshot in time to calculate the THN Fund and

payments are made to all establishments that qualify in early October. For some maintained

schools this can create a budget monitoring issue as they do not receive their allocation until

month 7 of the financial year making this more difficult to forecast. Another option could be to

use April as the snapshot in time allowing payments to be made in May and allowing

maintained schools, most of which are smaller in terms of pupils than the academies, to

monitor their budgets more effectively.

45

A paper was presented to the Kingston High Needs Sub-Group on 4 October 2021. Their

recommendation was to continue with Targeted High Needs at the current £300k level;

not to assign any of this funding to Early Intervention; and leaving the date used to

calculate this fund as September - this will be reported to Schools Forum in November as

well as the results from the schools consultation.

9. Do you support the continued use of a Targeted High Needs fund?

Option 1 - Yes

Option 2 - No

Option 3 - Not Sure

10. At what level do you believe the Targeted High Needs funding should be set at?

Option 1 - £100,000

Option 2 - £200,000

Option 3 - £300,000

11. Would you consider using all or a proportion of the Targeted High Needs fund to

ensure the continuation of Early Intervention (including the Bridge) (see more

detail of this service in question 8)?

Option 1 - £100,000

Option 2 - £200,000

12. Should September continue to be the snapshot in time used for EHCP numbers

or should this change to a lagged system using April allowing funds to be

distributed earlier?

Option 1 - Yes

Option 2 - No

Option 3 - Not Sure

46

Transfer from the Schools Block to High Needs Block

Schools Forum can vote to transfer up to 0.5% or £601,600 from the Schools Block to the

High Needs Block to provide some additional funding for high needs education pressures next

year. The Council will also consider whether this is in the best interests of Kingston pupils

when they consider the funding formula in February 2022.

Included in the consultation Schools are consulted on whether they wish to continue to provide

funding from the Schools Block for a Targeted High Needs Fund and Outreach support next

year.

In addition to the transfer for the Targeted High Needs Fund Schools Forum and Outreach

support school are asked if they wish to transfer an additional amount, to bring the transfer to

the maximum allowed (0.5%) to help reduce the pressures within the high needs block. The

indicative amount is £99,700, this is subject to change following the final allocation for

2022/23.

Attached outlines the indicative impact on each school in 2022/23.

13. Do you support a transfer of 0.5% from the schools block to the high

needs block?

Option 1 - Yes

Option 2 - No

Option 3 - Not sure

47

Migration towards the National Funding Formula (NFF)

Kingston’s local funding formula was brought more in line with the NFF through the adoption

of a number of NFF factors in 2018/19 and moved further closer in 2021/22 with the inclusion

of IDACI. Boroughs and schools have been encouraged to move their local formulas towards

the national funding formula methodology to enable a phased approach to formula changes

ready for when a hard national funding formula is introduced, and could result in changes to

funding levels (increases and decreases at a school by school level).

There is one element where the local formula still differs from the NFF, this is the lump sum

amount. Each school receives a lump sum, irrespective of its size or phase, Kingston currently

has the highest lump sum rate in the country at £175,000 for both primary and secondary

schools. The National Funding Formula rate for 2022/23 is £133,480.95.

Schools are asked to consider whether they wish to reduce the lump sum rate in 2022/23 to

be in line with the national funding formula level. The impact of this change would be to

redistribute funding between schools. The following table shows the impact of this change by

school.

Migration to the NFF

School NOR

Current

Lump Sum

(£175k)

NFF Lump

Sum

(£133k)

Change

Burlington Junior School 470 2,175,080.05 2,166,838.58 -8,241.47

Burlington Infant and Nursery School 350 1,721,233.24 1,704,495.37 -16,737.87

Coombe Hill Infant School 268 1,315,189.98 1,319,642.37 4,452.39

Ellingham Primary School 377 1,836,437.49 1,842,141.56 5,704.07

Lime Tree Primary School 370 1,810,267.18 1,794,945.38 -15,321.80

Tolworth Junior School 350 1,713,319.96 1,696,582.09 -16,737.87

Tolworth Infant and Nursery School 330 1,633,572.38 1,615,418.44 -18,153.94

Coombe Hill Junior School 418 1,895,745.69 1,883,822.45 -11,923.24

Maple Infants' School 264 1,304,711.92 1,281,884.96 -22,826.96

Alexandra School 424 2,009,154.53 1,997,656.11 -11,498.42

King Athelstan Primary School 410 2,160,954.28 2,161,161.87 207.59

Grand Avenue Primary and Nursery School 617 2,735,059.55 2,737,226.17 2,166.62

Malden Manor Primary and Nursery School 394 1,871,402.27 1,857,779.75 -13,622.52

King's Oak Primary School 405 2,297,468.07 2,297,675.67 207.60

Lovelace Primary School 563 2,572,421.78 2,570,765.02 -1,656.76

48

Fern Hill Primary School 615 2,768,668.21 2,770,693.23 2,025.02

Christ Church New Malden CofE Primary School 408 1,885,386.70 1,872,755.43 -12,631.27

Christ Church CofE Primary School 499 2,121,867.46 2,121,867.46 0.00

Malden Parochial CofE Primary School 209 995,695.59 974,928.14 -20,767.45

St Andrew's and St Mark's CofE Junior School 352 1,587,405.89 1,570,809.63 -16,596.26

St John's C of E Primary School 203 991,360.48 972,078.82 -19,281.66

St Paul's CofE Primary School 204 983,543.17 965,426.11 -18,117.06

St Paul's CofE Primary School, Kingston Hill 372 1,674,001.83 1,663,837.72 -10,164.11

St Matthew's CofE Primary School 397 1,764,108.30 1,750,698.19 -13,410.11

St Mary's CofE (Aided) Primary School 185 926,637.71 909,850.27 -16,787.44

Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School 419 1,896,538.16 1,884,685.72 -11,852.44

Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Primary School 408 1,808,238.64 1,795,607.37 -12,631.27

St Joseph's Catholic Primary School 200 1,071,799.10 1,050,619.70 -21,179.40

St Luke's CofE Primary School 267 1,219,885.11 1,197,270.56 -22,614.55

Chessington School 493 3,588,919.34 3,598,507.07 9,587.73

Castle Hill Primary School 427 2,006,451.27 2,006,658.86 207.59

Knollmead Primary School 199 1,063,134.80 1,043,364.45 -19,770.35

Green Lane Primary and Nursery School 388 1,708,298.64 1,708,506.23 207.59

Latchmere School 855 3,675,532.89 3,675,532.89 0.00

Robin Hood Primary and Nursery School 187 1,058,489.88 1,038,162.13 -20,327.75

St Agatha's Catholic Primary School 399 1,782,778.49 1,774,263.43 -8,515.06

The Kingston Academy 938 5,752,967.67 5,809,668.85 56,701.18

Coombe Girls' School 1,144 6,984,887.62 7,004,046.78 19,159.16

Southborough High School 649 4,173,924.71 4,200,417.57 26,492.86

The Tiffin Girls' School 894 5,007,651.93 5,059,884.37 52,232.44

Tolworth Girls' School and Sixth Form 1,115 6,890,797.30 6,952,691.14 61,893.84

Tiffin School 908 5,093,052.00 5,146,694.79 53,642.79

Richard Challoner School 796 4,796,609.71 4,810,073.65 13,463.94

The Holy Cross School 759 4,614,739.79 4,627,780.84 13,041.05

Coombe Boys' School 817 5,173,658.27 5,217,658.42 44,000.15

The Hollyfield School and Sixth Form Centre 928 5,740,532.67 5,756,506.09 15,973.42

49

14. What level do you think the lump sum should be set at next year?

Option 1 - It should remain the same - £175,000

Option 2 - It should be brought in line with the NFF lump sum - £133,480.95

Option 3 - Not sure

50

Increase in allocation compared to 2021/22

No TransferTargeted High Needs

(£100,000)Targeted High Needs

(£200,000)Targeted High Needs

(£300,000)

Outreach

(£201,900)

THN & Outreach(£501,900)

Max 0.5% Transfer(£601,650)

School NOR

Increase in allocation

compared to 2021/22

(£)


(%)


compared to 2021/22

(£)

Difference compared

to "No transfer"


(%)


compared to 2021/22

(£)

Difference compared

to "No transfer"


(%)


compared to 2021/22

(£)

Difference compared

to "No transfer"


(%)


compared to 2021/22

(£)

Difference compared

to "No transfer"


(%)


compared to 2021/22

(£)

Difference compared

to "No transfer"


(%)


compared to 2021/22

(£)

Difference compared

to "No transfer"


(%)

Burlington Junior School 470 £40,075 1.92% £38,253 -1,822 1.83% £36,403 -3,672 1.73% £34,508 -5,567 1.63% £36,368 -3,707 1.73% £30,337 -9,738 1.41% £28,255 -11,820 1.31%

Burlington Infant and Nursery School 350 £44,608 2.83% £43,251 -1,357 2.73% £41,873 -2,734 2.64% £40,462 -4,146 2.54% £41,847 -2,761 2.64% £37,356 -7,252 2.33% £35,805 -8,802 2.22%

Coombe Hill Infant School 268 £39,375 3.46% £38,067 -1,308 3.34% £36,742 -2,633 3.21% £35,385 -3,990 3.09% £36,717 -2,658 3.21% £32,399 -6,976 2.81% £30,908 -8,467 2.67%

Ellingham Primary School 377 £58,019 3.46% £56,147 -1,872 3.34% £54,251 -3,768 3.21% £52,309 -5,710 3.09% £54,215 -3,804 3.21% £48,036 -9,983 2.81% £45,902 -12,117 2.67%

Lime Tree Primary School 370 £56,652 3.45% £54,903 -1,749 3.34% £53,020 -3,633 3.21% £51,090 -5,562 3.09% £52,984 -3,669 3.21% £46,844 -9,809 2.81% £44,724 -11,928 2.67%

Tolworth Junior School 350 £44,445 2.83% £43,089 -1,357 2.74% £41,711 -2,734 2.64% £40,300 -4,146 2.55% £41,685 -2,761 2.64% £37,193 -7,252 2.33% £35,643 -8,802 2.22%

Tolworth Infant and Nursery School 330 £42,250 2.83% £40,971 -1,279 2.74% £39,672 -2,578 2.64% £38,341 -3,909 2.55% £39,647 -2,603 2.64% £35,412 -6,838 2.33% £33,950 -8,299 2.23%

Coombe Hill Junior School 418 £45,395 2.57% £43,775 -1,620 2.47% £42,129 -3,266 2.37% £40,444 -4,951 2.27% £42,098 -3,297 2.37% £36,734 -8,661 2.04% £34,882 -10,513 1.93%

Maple Infants' School 264 £34,825 3.02% £33,802 -1,023 2.93% £32,762 -2,062 2.83% £31,698 -3,127 2.73% £32,742 -2,082 2.83% £29,355 -5,470 2.50% £28,185 -6,640 2.39%

Alexandra School 424 £53,646 2.83% £52,002 -1,643 2.73% £50,333 -3,312 2.64% £48,623 -5,022 2.54% £50,301 -3,344 2.63% £44,860 -8,785 2.32% £42,982 -10,664 2.21%

King Athelstan Primary School 410 £13,587 0.50% £13,587 0 0.50% £13,587 0 0.50% £13,587 0 0.50% £13,587 0 0.50% £13,587 0 0.50% £13,587 0 0.50%

Grand Avenue Primary and Nursery School 617 £62,721 2.32% £60,330 -2,391 2.22% £59,471 -3,251 2.18% £59,471 -3,251 2.18% £59,471 -3,251 2.18% £59,471 -3,251 2.18% £59,471 -3,251 2.18%

Malden Manor Primary and Nursery School 394 £48,760 2.82% £47,233 -1,527 2.72% £45,682 -3,078 2.63% £44,094 -4,667 2.53% £45,653 -3,108 2.63% £40,597 -8,164 2.31% £38,851 -9,909 2.20%

King's Oak Primary School 405 £16,458 0.50% £16,458 0 0.50% £16,458 0 0.50% £16,458 0 0.50% £16,458 0 0.50% £16,458 0 0.50% £16,458 0 0.50%

Lovelace Primary School 563 £68,783 2.84% £66,600 -2,182 2.74% £64,384 -4,398 2.64% £62,114 -6,669 2.54% £64,342 -4,441 2.64% £57,117 -11,665 2.33% £54,623 -14,159 2.22%

Fern Hill Primary School 615 £75,798 2.83% £73,414 -2,384 2.73% £70,993 -4,805 2.63% £68,513 -7,285 2.53% £70,947 -4,851 2.63% £63,055 -12,743 2.30% £60,330 -15,467 2.19%

Christ Church New Malden CofE Primary School 408 £45,481 2.68% £43,900 -1,581 2.59% £42,294 -3,187 2.49% £40,648 -4,833 2.39% £42,263 -3,218 2.49% £37,027 -8,454 2.18% £35,220 -10,261 2.07%

Christ Church CofE Primary School 499 £43,145 2.22% £43,145 0 2.22% £43,145 0 2.22% £43,145 0 2.22% £43,145 0 2.22% £43,145 0 2.22% £43,145 0 2.22%

Malden Parochial CofE Primary School 209 £25,376 3.13% £24,566 -810 3.03% £23,743 -1,633 2.93% £22,901 -2,476 2.82% £23,728 -1,649 2.93% £21,046 -4,330 2.59% £20,120 -5,256 2.47%

St Andrew's and St Mark's CofE Junior School 352 £39,483 2.82% £38,119 -1,364 2.72% £36,733 -2,750 2.62% £35,314 -4,169 2.52% £36,707 -2,776 2.62% £32,190 -7,293 2.29% £30,630 -8,853 2.18%

St John's C of E Primary School 203 £27,738 3.46% £26,777 -961 3.34% £25,804 -1,934 3.21% £24,807 -2,931 3.09% £25,785 -1,953 3.21% £22,614 -5,125 2.81% £21,519 -6,220 2.67%

St Paul's CofE Primary School 204 £22,621 2.83% £21,830 -791 2.73% £21,027 -1,594 2.62% £20,205 -2,416 2.52% £21,012 -1,609 2.62% £18,394 -4,227 2.29% £17,490 -5,131 2.17%

St Paul's CofE Primary School, Kingston Hill 372 £50,944 3.46% £49,181 -1,764 3.34% £47,395 -3,550 3.21% £45,565 -5,379 3.09% £47,360 -3,584 3.21% £41,539 -9,406 2.81% £39,529 -11,416 2.67%

St Matthew's CofE Primary School 397 £49,038 3.12% £47,500 -1,539 3.02% £45,937 -3,101 2.92% £44,336 -4,702 2.82% £45,907 -3,131 2.92% £40,812 -8,226 2.59% £39,054 -9,985 2.48%

St Mary's CofE (Aided) Primary School 185 £21,206 2.83% £20,489 -717 2.74% £19,761 -1,445 2.64% £19,015 -2,191 2.53% £19,747 -1,459 2.63% £17,373 -3,833 2.31% £16,554 -4,653 2.20%

Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School 419 £48,404 2.84% £46,780 -1,624 2.74% £45,130 -3,273 2.64% £43,441 -4,963 2.54% £45,099 -3,305 2.64% £39,722 -8,682 2.32% £37,866 -10,538 2.21%

Our Lady Immaculate Catholic Primary School 408 £45,751 2.84% £44,169 -1,581 2.74% £42,563 -3,187 2.64% £40,918 -4,833 2.53% £42,532 -3,218 2.63% £37,297 -8,454 2.30% £35,489 -10,261 2.19%

St Joseph's Catholic Primary School 200 £30,418 3.46% £29,363 -1,056 3.34% £28,294 -2,125 3.21% £27,198 -3,220 3.09% £28,273 -2,145 3.21% £24,788 -5,630 2.81% £23,585 -6,833 2.67%

St Luke's CofE Primary School 267 £29,234 2.82% £28,199 -1,035 2.72% £27,148 -2,086 2.61% £26,071 -3,163 2.51% £27,128 -2,106 2.61% £23,702 -5,532 2.27% £22,519 -6,715 2.16%

Chessington School 493 £108,840 2.95% £106,043 -2,798 2.86% £103,201 -5,639 2.76% £100,291 -8,550 2.67% £103,147 -5,693 2.76% £93,885 -14,956 2.46% £90,687 -18,154 2.35%

Castle Hill Primary School 427 £10,053 0.50% £10,053 0 0.50% £10,053 0 0.50% £10,053 0 0.50% £10,053 0 0.50% £10,053 0 0.50% £10,053 0 0.50%

Knollmead Primary School 199 £24,727 2.84% £23,956 -771 2.74% £23,172 -1,555 2.65% £22,370 -2,357 2.56% £23,157 -1,570 2.65% £20,604 -4,123 2.35% £19,722 -5,005 2.25%

Green Lane Primary and Nursery School 388 £8,183 0.50% £8,183 0 0.50% £8,183 0 0.50% £8,183 0 0.50% £8,183 0 0.50% £8,183 0 0.50% £8,183 0 0.50%

Latchmere School 855 £74,314 2.14% £74,314 0 2.14% £74,314 0 2.14% £74,314 0 2.14% £74,314 0 2.14% £74,314 0 2.14% £74,314 0 2.14%

Robin Hood Primary and Nursery School 187 £27,084 3.02% £26,359 -725 2.93% £25,623 -1,461 2.84% £24,869 -2,215 2.75% £25,609 -1,475 2.84% £23,210 -3,875 2.54% £22,381 -4,703 2.44%

St Agatha's Catholic Primary School 399 £54,126 3.46% £52,253 -1,874 3.34% £50,355 -3,771 3.21% £48,412 -5,715 3.09% £50,319 -3,807 3.21% £44,135 -9,992 2.81% £41,999 -12,127 2.67%

The Kingston Academy 938 £145,601 2.66% £140,224 -5,377 2.56% £134,763 -10,837 2.46% £129,169 -16,431 2.36% £134,659 -10,942 2.46% £116,858 -28,743 2.13% £110,712 -34,889 2.02%

Coombe Girls' School 1,144 £229,307 3.46% £221,373 -7,934 3.34% £213,339 -15,968 3.21% £205,110 -24,197 3.09% £213,185 -16,122 3.21% £186,998 -42,308 2.81% £177,958 -51,349 2.67%

Southborough High School 649 £111,099 2.83% £107,376 -3,723 2.74% £103,594 -7,504 2.64% £99,721 -11,378 2.54% £103,522 -7,577 2.64% £91,196 -19,903 2.32% £86,940 -24,158 2.21%

The Tiffin Girls' School 894 £118,952 2.49% £113,820 -5,132 2.38% £108,608 -10,344 2.27% £103,268 -15,684 2.15% £108,508 -10,444 2.26% £101,201 -17,750 2.11% £101,201 -17,750 2.11%

Tolworth Girls' School and Sixth Form 1,115 £184,255 2.80% £177,859 -6,396 2.70% £171,363 -12,892 2.60% £164,709 -19,547 2.50% £171,239 -13,017 2.60% £150,063 -34,192 2.27% £142,752 -41,503 2.16%

Tiffin School 908 £117,751 2.41% £112,542 -5,209 2.30% £107,251 -10,500 2.19% £103,389 -14,362 2.11% £107,150 -10,601 2.19% £103,389 -14,362 2.11% £103,389 -14,362 2.11%

Richard Challoner School 796 £155,943 3.46% £150,575 -5,368 3.34% £145,139 -10,804 3.21% £139,571 -16,372 3.09% £145,035 -10,908 3.21% £127,317 -28,626 2.81% £121,200 -34,743 2.67%

The Holy Cross School 759 £149,398 3.46% £144,221 -5,178 3.34% £138,978 -10,420 3.21% £133,608 -15,791 3.09% £138,878 -10,521 3.21% £121,788 -27,610 2.81% £115,888 -33,510 2.67%

Coombe Boys' School 817 £138,914 2.83% £134,233 -4,681 2.73% £129,478 -9,436 2.63% £124,607 -14,307 2.53% £129,387 -9,527 2.63% £113,888 -25,026 2.31% £108,537 -30,377 2.20%

The Hollyfield School and Sixth Form Centre 928 £187,120 3.46% £180,622 -6,499 3.34% £174,041 -13,079 3.21% £167,301 -19,820 3.09% £173,915 -13,205 3.21% £152,465 -34,655 2.81% £145,060 -42,060 2.67%

51

Appendix D - Consultation Results

52

Comments:

This seems sensible but it is another hit on the budget at a time when there is no slack

Training courses are difficult to book onto due to lack of availability

Will the training be free?

An excellent service

53

Comments:

we have our own arrangements for safeguarding training

Is it enough?

Comment:

Again may not be funded from EY block but I do support this

I have found this service difficult to access and not supportive of our students. I am investing a

great deal of money in this area to support the xxx students and this is having a greater impact.

We would like to know more about the services The Bridge can offer us.

If Richmond schools are accessing the Bridge, are they also being asked to contribute?

Not sure of the relevance to us as a Primary school but understand the importance for secondary

schools

54

I am broadly very supportive, but what are the plans for continuing the funding of Malden Oaks?

As a group of Secondary Heads we had asked for alternative models of funding which we have

not received. Funding was only agreed originally as a temporary measure. It is not a good long

term funding strategy. I'm not convinced by the case made, particularly re secondary role of EISS.

It does not represent good value for money for us at Secondary level and I am unclear of the

impact for Secondaries. This really needs further discussion if elements are valued by Primary

colleagues and not Secondary.

Comment:

Are the SRP ECHPs included in the calculation? What is the average number of EHCPs in a

school? At XXX our ECHP count is increasing, would we fall into this category at any point in the

future?

would prefer the lower level of support as a %age our numbers are increasing and the investment

we are making is also increasing to support SEND students who do not get EHCP funding but

really do need it.

It would be useful to know the number of EHCPs across the borough

With a reduction to 200k

As a school we have to lean on £250,000 of our budget to fund the 40+ EHC plans notional

amount. This puts a disproportionate pressure on our budget and so the amount we receive as a

school, whilst a relatively small amount, is greatly valued and needed. That said, we do need to

discuss how those schools with very high numbers of EHCPs will be supported when the NFF

comes in and we lose these important streams.

55

Comment:

As before, this funding is needed in the schools who take a disproportionate number of EHCPs.

Comment:

Im not sure as I don't what amount would be needed to support.

We have said Yes- £100k, as the EI would appear to be needs based rather than on numbers of

EHCPs, where needs vary.

Not close enough to have a view on how much but it would make sense to separate these

aspects out

As before, at Secondary level we do not see the impact and thus value.

56

Comment:

Anything that will help with forecasting income would be great.

Primary benefit of April is not earlier distribution of funds but certainty for budgeting purposes

Currently in talks about MAT and therefore this would affect funding dates.

But would need to understand more about this.

Comments:

There is still a very big overspend-however I would prefer for the DFE to step in and help reduce it

further, as taking from schools block to pay high needs is a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul!

No impact on XXXX from the Indicative numbers

The amount extra is too much for us to lose.

57

Comment:

My concern is that primary schools would lose significant sums and secondary schools would

gain. My gut feeling is that secondary schools probably have more capacity to absorb a loss of

circa £15k than a primary school and I am therefore reluctant to make the change.

This relates to schools block funding and our school receives from EY block

Our budget is still recovering after additional COVID expenses, it would be a very difficult time to

have a significant reduction in budget.

Being in the MFG this does not affect us. However, we are swaying towards easing schools in to

NFF. When is the "hard NFF" introduction likely to be? Also what happens to the MFG then?

While it is a negative impact for the school, moving towards NFF is the right thing to do

Due to the uncertainty around timings on the NFF, we should respond and react when we know

the actual position

Again, £11,000 is too much to lose.

goes some way to meeting the standing costs that all schools face, regardless of pupil numbers.

58

Kingston Schools Forum, November 2021 Item 7

SEND Futures Plan Update

1. Introduction

a. Under the terms of the Council’s “Safety Valve” Agreement, the Council is required to report quarterly

to the Department for Education (DfE) on performance against terms in the agreement. In September

the council submitted their second quarterly report (attached as Annex 1). The report stated that

“There is a good level of confidence that the terms and conditions for 2021/22 will be fully met and

that this work will support the achievement of conditions associated with future years”. This has

resulted in the Safety Valve Funding being received for the second quarter. The council will report to

the DfE again in December. The quality of Kingston’s reporting has been complemented by the DfE and

has been shared with other Local Authorities as best practice.

b. Work is on-going with regards to the implementation of recommendations arising from the LGA Peer

Review of SEND Provision. Examples are:

● The Schools Forum High Needs Sub Group has been established and held its first meeting in

October. This working group will examine the spend from the High Needs Block and provide

updates and recommendations to the Schools Forum. A review of the banding tool and top-up

funding are the key focus of this subgroup at present.

● The SEND Parent Carer Engagement Officer recruitment process has been completed and we

hope the successful candidate will be in post in December. They will be responsible for

developing closer working relationships with families that will ensure that parents and carers of

children and young people with SEND are fully involved in the SEND Futures Plan. They will also

lead the launch and delivery of the Coram SEND Parent Champions scheme, acting as the

Parent Champions Coordinator.

c. The Ofsted / CQC inspection revisit following the original Local Area SEND Inspection of September

2018 has not yet materialised, and is expected sometime in this academic year.

d. Of note is that the outcome of the recent Richmond Local Area SEND Inspection has been published

and the report has been shared with relevant partners. There was one area of significant weakness that

was identified about Preparing for Adulthood and transitioning from Children to Adult services.

2. Workstream 1: Co-production, engagement and participation

a. Updates

i. Children and young people with SEND have continued to share their views and influence planning and

decision-making through a range of projects. SEND Participation Members met with a researcher to

contribute their views for the Kingston Local Plan and pupils at Dysart, Bedelsford and St Philips schools

took part in focus groups to inform the Post-16 Campus Project. The SEND Young People's Recruits

Crew has most recently been involved in the recruitment of Occupational Therapists, Art and Family

Therapists and Assistant Psychologists and continues to be in demand

59

ii. The Local Offer website has been updated to take into account feedback from users and accessibility

has been improved through several features including simplification of layout and design, a refresh of

colours in line with required standards and an improved accessibility tool button. A monthly meeting

with PCF representatives to review web content to be established to ensure the Local Offer is as

inclusive as possible and provides all relevant information to children and young people, parents, carers

and other relevant parties.

iii. The six areas of co-production agreed with the Parent Carer Forum now have agreed leads from either

Achieving for Children or the Clinical Commissioning Group to ensure that there is collaborative

working across all workstreams. Quarterly meetings with PCF Chair, AfC and CCG will include

monitoring progress with co-producing service improvement.

iv. Parent Consortium meetings have recommenced after the summer holidays. Meetings were held in

September and October with a particular focus on assessed need and non-assessed need short breaks

provision and continuing health care.

3. Workstream 2: Joint Commissioning

a. Updates and impact

i. Matters relating to therapy provision and emotional wellbeing and mental health are included under

Workstream 3.

ii. AfC’s Head of Strategic Commissioning has been appointed to build on and embed the improvements

that we have been making to our commissioning practice and after starting in December will lead and

support the existing team in day to day SEND commissioning.

iii. Two SEND Placement Commissioners started in September on an interim basis; these roles will ensure

progress with improving the quality and value for money of SEND placements. These roles are

fundamental in the negotiation of reducing over inflationary increases and laying the foundations of

the permanent commissioning team.

iv. The re-commissioning of the SENDIASS contract will go out for consultation in 2022. We aim to make

this process an additional significant piece of co-production.

b. Areas of concern

i. Particularly at Post-16 placements there have been a number of proposed placement price increases

over and above the current rate of inflation submitted from providers. Whilst not unusual, this does

present budgetary pressure and will require strong negotiation which is underway as well as use of the

South London Commissioning Partnership (SLCP)

c. Priorities for the next 3 months

i. Strong focus on negotiating better value SEND placements through the the SEND Placements

Commissioners across the borough specifically in the Post-16 placements where there has been

substantial placement cost increases

ii. The shaping of the commissioning team including filling permanent commissioner roles with a target

date of early 2022

60

4. Workstream 3: Local provision

a. Therapies

i. Service specifications for the recommissioned services for physiotherapy, occupational therapy and

speech and language therapy have now been agreed and signed off by the Therapies Operational

Group. Providers and commissioners will be agreeing contractual key performance indicators in

collaboration with the PCF and children and young people (CYP).

ii. Specialist Manual Handling (MH) training has now been completed by senior AfC physiotherapists,

which means all necessary MH assessments across Kingston schools can be undertaken.

iii. Pre and post diagnostic support team: parent groups have commenced at Moor Lane by invitation, and

all staff now trained to deliver Early Bird Programme which is a National Austic Society programme. The

programme aims to support parents in the period between diagnosis and school placement,

empowering and helping them facilitate their child's social communication and appropriate behaviour

in their natural environment.

iv. Work is underway to review the initial business case for investment in comparison to investment levels

that have been received, to better understand what can be delivered within the funding envelope. This

will help with decisions as to what services to prioritise. Once this is complete, focus will turn to

reviewing the spot-purchasing arrangements and to identify how this can be improved to ensure great

consistency and better value for money.

b. Emotional wellbeing and mental health

i. Working party has been established to take the iThrive model forward, including parent and carers,

children and young people and colleagues from across the CCG, AfC, partners, South West London St

George’s and Adult Services. The iThrive Model is under development, including bringing national and

regional leads together to plan implementation in Kingston. Funding has been secured to develop this

process in Kingston and the assessment of the current situation is complete. iThrive workshop sessions

have been scheduled to ensure full understanding of the system by the relevant stakeholders.

ii. Significant mapping of current issues and pathways being undertaken across emotional and mental

health services by a local task and finish group reporting to a senior leaders roundtable forum. Key

focus on service demand & capacity, finance and workforce.

iii. All primary and secondary schools in the borough will be supported by Mental Health Support Teams

(MHSTs) in schools from January 2022. With increasing need this coverage will help support CYP at

school at the earliest opportunity.

c. Local Places

i. Work is on-going with the Department for Education and Ambitious About Autism to open the new

special free school at the Moor Lane site, planning application due to be submitted to the DfE in late

autumn, for a 2023 opening.

ii. Post-16 Campus with Orchard Hill College Academy Trust still being planned, initial consultation

completed and approvals obtained.

61

iii. Work is on-going to deliver phase 2 of the post-16 social emotional and mental health provision at

Malden Oaks, due to open in 2022.

d. 16 to 25 Years

i. Next Steps programme for 2021/22 has commenced, advisors currently prioritising year 11 reviews to

discuss post 16 pathway plans and phase transfer.

ii. The multiagency Transitions Working Group is now meeting regularly and linking in with the wider

agenda of the Council’s Maximising Independence transformation workstream to ensure a multi agency

approach to improving links between Children’s and Adult services across Health and Social Care.

e. Concerns

i. Waiting times for Speech and Language Therapy (SALT), occupational therapy and physiotherapy

remain high. There are challenges around the delivery of SALT due to lack of available therapists but

also levels of demand. Plan has been put into place with Your Healthcare and is to be closely monitored

and work is ongoing to ensure statutory provision can be delivered in spite of these workforce

challenges. There is a national shortage of therapists, recruitment of therapists in Kingston still remains

an issue.

ii. The ESFA’s progress towards delivering the special free school, to be run by Ambitious about Autism, inChessington, has been delayed by their having to re-tender for a new contractor, which has put theproposed opening date of September 2023 at high risk of not being achievable.

iii. The number of children and young people with emotional wellbeing and mental health needs isincreasing and waiting times are high. The SEND Partnership Board received an update from the ClinicalCommissioning Group and the Emotional Health Service on this matter in September.

iv. The iThrive model is not an instant fix and will require significant systemic change and investment

across all providers and partners that will take time to deliver. Waiting times for children and young

people is significantly increasing and the number of children and young people requiring support is too.

f. Priorities for next 3 months

i. The therapies funding arrangements between the CCG and AfC to be clarified, a comparison to be

complete as to what was requested and the realistic expectations so that all stakeholders have a clear

understanding of the current position.

ii. Consultation with children and young people and parents and carers to be completed on the Post-16

Campus

iii. Overview of all Mental Health support to be mapped and shared with relevant parties

iv. Establish Kingston Transition Board

5. Workstream 4: Early intervention and transitions

a. Recent impact and progress

i. Ordinarily Available document: Document is with PCF members for review, young people have

reviewed the document already and an accessible easy-read version is being created. The aim will be to

launch at the start of the Spring Term.

62

ii. Alternative Pathways: Emotional Related School Avoidance: The proposal has been shared with

relevant parties and they have contributed to its design. CCG to review the proposal and business case

will then be progressed.

iii. First 1001 Days: funding has been received from the Department for Work and Pensions for reducing

parental conflict and training for practitioners is being coordinated. Empowering parents activity is

on-going and staff have now been trained to train parents to deliver the parenting programme.

iv. The Head of Children, Youth and Partnership has reintroduced the Children’s Centre Partnership group

and the first meeting has been held with further meetings scheduled on a quarterly basis. Terms of

reference have been presented at the initial meeting and to be finalised. Group’s purpose is to develop

a collaborative approach when providing service for children aged 0-5 years old and their families

across a range of partners via the Children’s Centres.

v. Early Help Resilience Networks are outlining the resources available prior to early help services and the

support from parents in thinking through the needs of a family. Networks started to be held in January

2021 and continue to be held across both boroughs for the three age groups (0-4, 5-10, 11+) every

month and signposting to local services has been possible for each family. The Early Help Strategic

Board has agreed a data set and KPIs to review impact on referrals into the Early Help service.

vi. Inclusion Charter and Toolkit (previously called QFT Inclusion Charter): The resource has been

developed and is being publicised ahead of the pilot launch at the beginning of the Spring Term,

Headteachers being consulted prior to the official launch. Four sub-groups are continuing to meet and

the core group are to meet in October with the view to have a resource bank available for schools to

use during the pilot. The core group and sub groups continue to meet to refine the resource.

vii. Transitions: The working group that has been established to further refine transition at both KS2-3 and

KS4-5 are currently focussed on transitions framework so that schools manage it themselves and we

avoid duplication of forms, this new process will commence for the transition of 2022.

viii. Emotionally Related School Avoidance (ERSA), continues to be a priority area.

ix. Interventions: Education Inclusion Support Service (EISS) has re-drafted their offer for secondary

schools, these involve a focus on entrenched ERSA cases, an alternative curriculum offer for the small

numbers of young people for whom a mainstream curriculum is not suitable to aid progress and an

offer to better support families who are experiencing challenges but do not meet the threshold for

Early Help support.

b. Areas where progress has been slower than hoped / concerns

i. Growing number of ERSA related cases being referred for medical tuition and in turn becoming EHC

needs assessment requests.

ii. Social, Emotional and Mental Health needs are on the rise and have been for some time, the impact of

pandemic continues to be realised. Schools have a rising number of CYP unable to access school and in

some cases leave the home. Services are deploying a multi-agency approach to addressing this

emotionally related school avoidance (ERSA), and continue to support schools with the use of the ERSA

Toolkit.

63

c. Priorities for next three months

i. Finalise the draft Inclusion Charter and Toolkit to be launched in the academic year.

ii. The transitions working group are to finalise a transition framework which will include the revisedtransition form for schools to use which will be more accessible and simplified

iii. Finalise the standard and accessible Ordinarily Available documents

iv. Submit business cases for alternative pathways for consideration in November’s School Forum

v. Have a Year 7-8 alternative curriculum up and running

vi. Establish a clear strategy (with health) for supporting entrenched ERSA cases

vii. Adolescent Safeguarding restructure to be borough focused and have an additional worker for young

people presenting with contextual needs and mental health. Following this we will look at links and

secondment opportunities with Early Help - to increase knowledge and skills for the Early Help service

and support early intervention wherever possible.

6. Workstream 5: Assessment and planning


i. Significant increase in need and the number of requests for EHC needs assessments with a view to

receiving a EHC plan from schools since returning in September. This is to be closely monitored over the

coming months. EHC Needs Assessments multi-agency review group established to focus on the

increased requests.

ii. A new multi agency panel has been introduced to assess education, health and care needs assessment

requests. This is to ensure the robustness of adherence to statutory duties by all partners and will

additionally provide quicker information on emerging trends and the areas of the system that are

priorities for additional support.

iii. Designated Social Care Officer (DSCO) appointed in September. The remit of the DSCO role is to linkbetween SEND and Social Care teams. Main focuses of the role are to improve the link and transitionbetween Children’s and Adult Social Care, ensure accurate and sufficient input into EHC Plans by theSocial Care team and Parent Carer Needs Assessment improvements.

iv. Development work is in process including introduction of a revised advice template for Education,

Health and Care Needs Assessment and Preparing for Adulthood transition templates, covering

end-to-end SEND pathways.

v. A school based Annual Review Quality Assurance checklist has been produced working with school

representatives and is currently being further revised. Reminders have been sent out to school SENCos

to ensure that children and young people’s views are captured within the Annual review.

vi. Timeliness of advice continues to be monitored and triangulated with providers.


i. Overall number of EHC Plans is increasing and there is a significant increase in need following the

return of CYP to education settings. Demand management needs to be closely monitored to ensure

64

that we are in control of the issuance of EHC Plans whilst ensuring that CYP are being provided with the

best possible provision to meet their needs.

ii. Quality work around plans in transition and linking to Preparation for Adulthood outcomes.

iii. Consistency of approach to Person Centred Outcomes.


i. EHC Needs Assessment review group to meet with regards to emerging trends and supporting early

intervention and schools.

ii. Support for all parties involved in multi agency QA to improve quality and ensure consistency of advice

across advice givers. A Train the Trainer programme seeks to improve “Person Centred practice”. AfC

Workforce Development has identified a budgetary contribution to the overall costs of engaging Helen

Sanderson Associates to deliver this. This will enable AfC to subsidise participants' costs to undertake

the training. AfC has promoted the opportunity at the SPARKS SENCO Network. Further work ongoing

to identify participants from health and social care services.

iii. Agreement to use standardised QA tool for advice across all services contributing advice

iv. Moderation of QA to be conducted by the core QA team.

v. Increased school involvement in quality assurance of EHCP activities.

vi. Evaluate the impact of the Education,Health and Care needs assessment plan.

d. Number of education, health and care plans

i. The total number of Education Health and Care plans maintained by Kingston on 25th October stood at

1487. This was an increase of 77 over the previous twelve months, or 5.5%. The latest national data for

the increase in Education Health and Care plans is for calendar year 2020 when the number of plans

increased by 10.4% in England and 9.6% across London boroughs.

---------------------------

Nicola Moore

SEND Policy & Project Officer

[email protected]

65

Royal Borough of Kingston upon ThamesSafety Valve Agreement

Quarter Two 2021/22 Summary Update Report

Date Submitted 17th September 2021

Data Date 31st August 2021

Signed off by S151 Officer Sarah Ireland

Signed off by Director of Children’s Services Ian Dodds

Background documents Safety Valve AgreementSEND Futures Plan

Kingston continues to make consistent progress on the SEND Futures Plan including the conditionsassociated with the Safety Valve Agreement. Since the last report in June a number of risks toimplementation have increased (see below and Appendix D / the risk register) and because schoolshave been on their summer break there has been a pause to implementation of several actions withinWorkstream 4 relating to improving early intervention support at SEN Support level. There remains agood level of confidence that the financial envelope outlined in the Safety Valve Agreement Condition2 will be met despite a reduction in the in year grant allocation due to an adjustment to allow for thelatest exports / imports data.

A good level of confidence remains that the terms and conditions for 2021/22 will be fully met andthat this work will support the achievement of conditions associated with future years.

The latest iteration of the SEND Futures Plan was endorsed by Kingston’s People Committee in June2021 and has been published on the Local Offer website. The latest plan and progress update was alsopresented to Schools Forum on the 29th June 2021 and the papers published on the Schools Forummeeting agenda on the Council’s website.

The SEND Partnership Board, which brings partners together to monitor the plan every two months,met in July 2021 and the papers have been published on the Local Offer website. The SENDPartnership Board paper provides a detailed update on the five SEND Futures Plan workstreamsincluding progress made, emerging issues and upcoming priorities. The report is attached as appendixC to this report. A summary update on each of the safety valve conditions is included in the tablebelow with further detail on each area in the appendix. There is a good level of assurance given for allbut three areas. It is too early in the year to provide absolute assurance that the conditions will bemet for all areas but we are monitoring activity and are assured that this is moving forward in the rightdirection. There are no low assurance areas meaning there are no areas where Kingston does notthink it will meet the conditions set out in the agreement at this stage.

A medium level of assurance has also been provided in relation to capital developments. Goodprogress has been made in the development of most schemes but there is a potential delay to the newFree School due to a requirement for the DfE to re-tender for a new provider.

66

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970232/Kingston_upon_Thames_Agreement.pdf

https://kr.afcinfo.org.uk/pages/local-offer/information-and-advice/send-consultation-hub-and-resource-bank/send-futures-kingston


https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=232&MId=9193

https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=232&MId=9193

https://kr.afcinfo.org.uk/pages/local-offer/information-and-advice/send-consultation-hub-and-resource-bank/send-futures-kingston/kingston-send-partnership-board

Agreement Condition Assurance Level

Condition 2: Maximum Forecast DSG Deficit Profile at year end

£28.6m

Good

Progress update:

There is a Good level of assurance that this target will be met as evidenced within September Schools Forum

reports and appendices A and B. The current projected deficit on the DSG Fund before safety valve funding is

£28.3m compared to the max threshold set of £28.6m. The in year net deficit has worsened due to a

reduction in the grant allocation (£207k) to allow for the latest high needs import/export adjustment. A

focused financial review exercise will be undertaken in the autumn, once the new academic year placements

are better known, to assess where this gap can be recouped to support future years spend levels. Based on

historic trends the budget gap will also improve during the latter part of the year with projections being more

prudent until the cost of the September cohort is better known.

A more certain picture of demand for EHCPs should emerge during the autumn term once children have

settled into the new academic year but at this stage we expect the total number of EHCPs to be close to the

estimated level in January 2022. The management of demand is an important part of bringing the DSG fund

into a more sustainable position and the action being taken to manage demand for EHCPs whilst continuing to

meet the needs of children and young people is explored further in the SEND Partnership Board update (app

C) and summarised in 3.1 below. This will continue to be an area of focus for the workstreams and partners

over the coming months.

The key indicators to note are:

KPI SVA Target Q1 Q2

Max cumulative deficit before safety valve funding £28,607,000 £27,886,000 £28,260,000

Max number of EHCPs @Jan census (estimated) 1,537(+101)

1,550(+121)

1,537(+101)

Increase in EHCPS @ 31 May, 31 Aug 1,447 (+18) 1,470 (+41)

Condition 3.1: Improve support available in schools to manage

demand more effectively and reduce escalation of need.

Good

Initiatives to upskill the school workforce continue. Examples are given below. Of note is that a greater focus

on multi-agency working to meet the growth in needs around social emotional and mental health, with many

of these children and young people needing support from some or all of education, health and social care

professionals.

i. First 1001 Days - practitioners have been trained in Video Interactive Guidance and will be working

with families open to social care where there is a baby under 1 year old to enhance attachment and

attunement.

267

https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=232&MId=9193&Ver=4

https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=232&MId=9193&Ver=4

ii. The Head of Children, Youth and Partnership will be re-introducing the Children’s Centre partnership -

four dates agreed and terms of reference drafted to ensure partnership approach to early years offer.

iii. Early Help Resilience Networks started to be held in January 2021 and continue to be held across both

boroughs for the three age groups (0-4, 5-10, 11+) every month and signposting to local services has

been possible for each family. The Early Help Strategic Board has agreed a data set and KPIs to review

impact on referrals into the Early Help service.

iv. Quality First Teaching (QFT) Inclusion Charter - core group and sub groups continue to meet to refine

the resource. Headteachers being consulted prior to the official launch. QFT reflective journal [related

to the part about teaching in the classroom] has been shared to see what initial thoughts are. SPARK

Ed action research project to be delivered by the SIP team once the programme has been launched so

that schools who identify themselves as needing support [through a self evaluation audit] can receive

additional help to embed the charter into their everyday working.

v. Transitions - Post 16 transition communication sharing has formally started for the first time with AfC

facilitating and initial feedback from colleges is strong [30 YP included so far]. A working group has

been established to further refine transition at both KS2-3 and KS4-5 so that schools manage it

themselves and we avoid duplication of forms - this new process will commence for the transition of

2022.

vi. Early intervention initiatives - Nurture continues to go generally well although some staffing issues on

one school are impacting delivery. Further work for 2021-22 will be about applying the Nurture

principles across the whole school. Emotionally Related School Avoidance (ERSA) - continues to be a

priority area - meetings with health and education have been taking place to enable us to think

reflectively about how to better collaborate on meeting the needs of the young people where their

needs are too great for the ERSA toolkit to be used.

vii. Interventions - Education Inclusion Support Service (EISS) has re-drafted their offer for secondary

schools and will be presenting these to secondary heads to ensure they are in line with what

secondary schools need ahead of 2021-22. These involve a focus on entrenched ERSA cases, an

alternative curriculum offer for the small numbers of young people for whom a mainstream curriculum

is not suitable to aid progress and an offer to better support families who are experiencing challenges

but do not meet the threshold for Early Help support.

Condition 3.2: Expand specialist provision to avoid placements in

more expensive Non Maintained Special Schools and

independent special schools.

Good

Progress Update:

i. Joint working with the DfE and Ambitious About Autism for the opening of the new special free school

at Moor Lane, with a target date September 2023 also continues, with a planning application likely in

the autumn.

368

ii. Several new / expanded specialist provisions opened in September 2021. They are at Malden Oaks

(Post 16 SEMH), Alexandra Primary (Key Stage 2) and Coombe Boys’ School who at this stage have

increased their Enhanced Support Teaching Arrangement provision.

£139k of £191k in cost mitigations have been secured to date. All the anticipated places have been created

but there is a shortfall in the savings target due to a reduction in the average cost of alternative independent

placements - so the savings achieved per new place are lower. The savings target was calculated using the

average cost differential of a special school place compared to the alternative independent provision. As

average costs in independent placements have reduced through targeted commissioning and system changes,

the in-year saving has subsequently reduced. The average cost reduction is positive and will lead to the

achievement of more savings in other workstreams to compensate for this shortfall. Additional new places

have been identified for future years than were built into the original plan and this will support the

achievement of future years savings.

Condition 3.3: Manage demand for Education Health and Care

Plans (EHCP) by scrutinising provision at each annual review and

continuing to work with consultants Mastodon C to forecast and

manage EHCP growth during 2021-22.

Good

Progress Update:

The total number of EHC plans stands at 1470 at the end of August, representing a 6.4% increase over the past

twelve months.

Decision making regarding requests for an EHC Needs Assessment is being improved from September onwards

via the agreement that has been reached over recent months to establish a new multi agency panel to assess

and decide the outcome of these requests. This will provide greater objectivity and confidence that the

decision making is in line with the statutory duty as consistently as possible, and will ultimately impact the

number of EHC plans that are issued.

Regarding cessation of EHC plans, oversight of the process via the Annual Reviews, including forecasting of

EHC plans likely to be ceased in future months, has been improved by the restructure of the Preparing for

Adulthood team.

Condition 3.4: Improve efficiency of commissioning services to

drive down cost.

Medium

Progress Update:

Discussions have been taking place with college providers about the charges being applied for the provision of

teaching assistant support for young people with SEND, with a view to achieving a reduction in the hourly rate

charged. Kingston is one of four boroughs working jointly with providers to deliver improved value for money.

We expect a conclusion to these talks early in the new academic year.

An agreement to improve the value for money of speech and language therapy provision at a major college

469

provider has been achieved through a change to the delivery model.

The recruitment of permanent SEN place commissioners has been problematic and the posts remaining

unfilled following a recruitment round in June due to a lack of applications. The decision was taken in July to

appoint the posts on an interim basis of about 6 months so that progress with improving value for money can

continue whilst the recruitment of permanent positions continues. Two interim appointments (total 1 FTE for

Kingston) took place in August and both will start in September, with both staff experienced in this area

having worked in a number of different local authorities. Their ability to bring best practice to Kingston was a

key part of the selection criteria. Both will focus not only on delivering immediate improvements to value for

money (and quality) of placements, but also shaping of the permanent roles targeted for filling early in 2022.

AfC’s new Head of Strategic Commissioning was also appointed in August and although not exclusively a SEN

role will support the existing team to drive improvements in day to day SEND commissioning.

£114k of commissioning savings have been achieved to date from proactive commissioning activity compared

to a target of £351k. In addition a number of further savings have resulted from changes in the cohort of

young people placed in the independent sector and subsequent placement cost agreements. The average cost

of independent placements has reduced from the estimate of £33,313 to £30,443, yielding, once allowing for

the commissioning savings of £114k above, further cost mitigations of £215k in 2021/22. The recruitment

issues and also the pandemic context has made proactive commissioning negotiations difficult this year and it

is hoped that once the pandemic eases those conversations will yield more savings.

A medium level of assurance has been given due to the capacity issues being experienced to drive this area

forward following the recruitment difficulties.

Condition 3.5: Increase contributions from health and social care. Medium

Progress Update:

Contributions are projected to increase by £242k (compared to £599k built into the base plan) based on

known EHCPs. The current actual increase is £32k and represents the funding agreements confirmed and

made to date. The remaining £210k is the anticipated figure for future demand (the number of EHCPs

expected between September 21 to March 22). Of note is that the process around how costs relating to

placements including at least two of education, health and care are split has recently been reconsidered and

improved via a review of the role and practice of the Joint Agency Panel, and there is confidence therefore

that this mismatch between target and actual is a function of the needs of the individual children involved.

The contributions to date have actually reduced in all areas except adult health, however, there will be

significant placement changes and phase transitions confirmed in September 2021. This will be an area of

focus over the coming months as placements and associated funding is agreed for the new academic year. A

clearer framework and more proactive agreements have been introduced and we are confident that the

actual achievement will improve before the year end.

Partner Actual Increase incontribution

relative to 2020/21

Actual Increase incontribution

relative to 2020/21

570

Q1 Q2

Children's social care -£111k -£31k

Adult social care -£75k -£1k

Children's health -£43k -£11k

Adults health +£69k +£75k

Total -£160k +£32k

Condition 3.6: Commission a Local Government Association (LGA)

peer review and implement any recommendations arising from it

which drive sustainability in their high needs system.

Good

Progress Update:

Having taken place in April, the final report has been received and was published on the Local Offer Website

here in July. The SEND Partnership Board considered the findings in July. Recommendations are accepted and

are in the process of being implemented. An example of implementation is the delivery of a new Schools

Forum High Needs Block Sub Group. This was advertised to the Schools Forum in June with the request for

membership volunteers yielding ample representatives from across the phases and school type. The group

will meet for the first time in October. Another example is the recruitment of a Parent Carer Engagement

Officer to lead on parent carer engagement and co-production. This is currently being advertised with

interviews in early october. Wider findings of the review will be incorporated in the next iteration of the SEND

Futures Plan.

Condition 3.7: Reforming of the authority’s post-16 offer,

including but not limited to development of new provision.

Medium

Progress Update:

This condition is being progressed as part of Workstream 3 ‘Local Provision’.

The restructure of and recruitment to the Preparing for Adulthood Team is complete. The team is now fully

staffed and organised into placement type specialisms of mainstream schools, special school schools and

college / vocational. This has already had an impact in terms of the post 16 Annual Review process.

The Education Business Partnerships and Vocational Pathways team have been successful in bids for two

programmes to support employment for young people with physical disability and mental health needs and a

number of Kickstart placements have been achieved resulting in paid employment.

The new post 16 provision at Malden Oaks has opened.

Work towards the new 16 to 25 years campus continues, with work including linking with current providers

and their learners to forecast needs and include this insight into design plans. The major next steps are to

consult with young people and parents/carers regarding the detailed specification for the campus and to work

671



with LocatEd to identify and agree the site which remains work in progress. Work has also begun in looking at

what commissioning arrangements would be appropriate to support achievement of value for money.

£24k of the £120k savings target has been achieved to date and although the team are working hard to

improve value for money the improvements made have not had a significant impact on post 16 costs to date.

We will be able to project the position with more certainty later in the year as the placements for the new

academic year are still not finalised and will review whether alternative action is needed at that point.

Condition 3.8: Contribute to the reduction of the cumulative

deficit via alternative council funding sources in each financial

year covered by this agreement.

Good

Progress Update:

All 2021/22 budget transfers that were built in to the financial modelling have been agreed as follows:

£1.2m general fund contribution agreed for 2021/22.

£462k in block transfers agreed as part of DSG budget setting process.

The Schools Forum will be meeting in September and again in November following an autumn consultation to

consider the prioritisation of education funding for the 2022/23 budget.

Capital: Progress on capital investment and associated local

infrastructure growth

Medium

Three new provisions have opened in September 2021 - a Key Stage 2 specialist resource provision at

Alexandra School for eight children with MLD/PD; - another primary centre of Dysart School for children with

complex needs; and the first phase of a post-16 provision at Malden Oaks for 16 young people with SEMH.

Good progress has been made towards establishing a new post-16 SEND centre in the borough which would

provide, on one campus, a second site for the sixth forms of the three Orchard Hill special schools (Bedelsford,

Dysart and St Philip’s) plus the re-location of Orchard Hill College’s local centre, currently based in New

Malden. The granting of £3.6m to support this project, plus a substantial portion of the borough’s HNC

allocation, will make this deliverable, subject to formal Council sign-off and the securing of a suitable site.

The ESFA’s progress towards delivering the special free school, to be run by Ambitious about Autism, in

Chessington, has been delayed by their having to re-tender for a new contractor, which has put the proposed

opening date of September 2023 at high risk of not being achievable.

The SEND Futures Plan update report identifies a number of emerging risks. Risks are monitored bythe Director of Children's Services and his team and where needed associated mitigating actions areidentified and implemented. Appendix D provides the SEND Futures Plan risk register for information.None of the risks are likely to compromise progress on the SEND Futures Plan in the short term. It isimportant that the following risks continue to be carefully monitored, noting also that the risk registercontains an increase in the number of risks considered to be moderate or high compared to lastquarter:

772

● Impact of Covid 19, particularly on the timely delivery of health support, need for emotionalhealth services and impact on need and complexity of EHCPs. The Director of Children’sServices will work with partners to monitor this area closely over the coming year so thatpartners can ensure these services are adequately resourced.

● It has taken several months to recruit commissioning resources, including following thedeparture of the Director of Commissioning and Partnerships from Achieving for Children inQ1. Peopletoo were commissioned to provide temporary capacity whilst the recruitment iscompleted. As per 3.4 above considerable progress was made with this in August, albeitpartially on an interim basis. The challenges around staffing are being carefully monitored.

Regarding requests for additional support from the DfE to help Kingston meet its objectives:

● The opening date for the new local special free school for autism at Moor Lane looks like itmay be delayed. Anything that could be done to help speed this process would beappreciated, as delays will have a negative financial impact.

● We continue to hear of cases where health professionals have discussed EHC needsassessments / plans and / or particular school placements with families in a way that is notalways in line with the statutory process / SEND Code of Practice. We would ask that the DfEworks with NHS England colleagues to ensure such conversations are conducted in line withformal processes so as to make the experience of families as joined up and understandableas possible.

Summary of appendices

Appendix A - Demand and Financial Management Dataset

Appendix B - SEND Futures Plan Budget Monitoring

Appendix C - SEND Futures Workstream Update

Appendix D - Risk Register

Key contact

Ian DoddsDirector of Children's ServicesRoyal Borough of Kingston upon Thames &London Borough of Richmond upon ThamesTelephone: 020 8891 7551E-mail: [email protected]

873

KINGSTON DEMAND AND FINANCE DASHBOARD Appendix A

Ref Key Performance IndicatorBaseline 31st

March 2021 Target 21/22 Q1 Q2 RAG Comment Target Derivation KPI Category

1 Actual EHCPs 1429 1471 1447 1470 G actual @ Aug, Target prorata Pro rata Demand Management

2 % increase in EHCPs 6.72% 2.92% 1.26% 2.87% G actual @ Aug, Target prorata Pro rata Demand Management

3 Net EHCPs @ Jan Projected 1436 1537 1550 1537 G Projected @Jan census Annual - In Plan Demand Management

4 % increase 9.29% 7.00% 7.94% 7.00% G Annual - In Plan Demand Management

5 New EHCPs 27 172 24 52 G actual @ Aug, Target annual Annual - In Plan Demand Management

6 Ceased EHCPs -41 -72 -7 -22 A actual @ Aug, Target annual Annual - In Plan Demand Management

6a Movers n/a n/a 1 11 G actual @ Aug, Target annual Annual Demand Management

7 % of EHCP per head of population 2.20% 2.20% 2.25% 2.73% A updated population estimates used in Q2 Annual Demand management

8 % of pupils with SEN Support 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.90% G updated population estimates used in Q2 Annual Demand management

9 HNB Surplus / Deficit £6,564,065 £5,432,000 £5,120,000 £5,704,626 A

Reduction in budget for export adjustment has impacted in year position. Detailed financial exercise in autumn for new academic year cohort will give more clarity over variance and spend levels. Annual - In Plan Financial Control

10 HNB Spend £30,270,400 £31,791,000 £31,680,146 £32,057,326 A£201K increase is matched by an additional schools block transfer agreed for additional Education Outreach Services. Annual - In Plan Financial Control

11HNB Spend - direct (includes recoupment and future demand) £28,793,720 £29,912,412 £29,813,462 £30,230,169 A Annual Financial Control

12 HNB Spend - central £1,476,680 £1,878,588 £1,866,684 £1,827,157 G Annual Financial Control

13 In Year DSG Surplus/Deficit £5,149,967 £3,482,000 £3,485,000 £3,859,000 A

Likely to improve before year end - More clarity once new academic year has settled in and also additional Early years census data received. Annual - In Plan Financial Control

14Cumulative DSG Surplus/Deficit - before safety valve funding £24,401,000 £28,607,000 £27,886,000 £28,260,000 G Annual - In Plan Financial Control

15 Cumulative DSG Surplus/Deficit - after safety valve funding £12,401,000 £11,607,000 £10,886,000 £11,260,000 G Annual Financial Control

16 Funding gap as % of HNB allocation -30.09% -22.76% -22.33% -24.79% A Annual Financial Control

17 Early Years outturn -£871,000 -£750,000 -£436,000 -£436,000 A Annual - In Plan Financial Control

18 HNB DSG allocation £23,268,514 £25,897,000 £25,896,881 £25,689,881 G Annual - In Plan Financial Control

19 Block transfers £437,800 £462,000 £662,800 £662,800 G Annual - In Plan Financial Control

20 General Fund £0 £1,200,000 £1,200,000 £1,200,000 G Annual - In Plan Financial Control

21 Savings / mitigation < 16 HNB only n/a £666,000 £309,967 £424,388 A Annual - In Plan Financial Control

22 Savings / mitigation > 16 HNB only n/a £595,000 £217,459 £309,851 A

Position has worsened due to cohort change. Awaiting info on new academic year to refine projection and assess whether action is neeed. Annual - In Plan Financial Control

23 Average cost - all HNB 2 - 18 789 841 838 848 G Annual Value for Money

24 Savings / mitigation - HNB only n/a £1,261,000 £527,426 £734,239 A Annual - In Plan Value for Money

25 Average placement cost < 16s £18,778 £16,483 £16,797 £16,928 A Annual Value for Money

26 Average placement cost > 16s £13,206 £11,877 £11,778 £13,226 A Annual Value for Money

27 Average cost of an independent < 16 £38,140 £33,313 £33,657 £30,443 G Annual Value for Money

28Average cost of maintained / academy special school - in borough £29,683 £28,650 £28,547 £29,324 A Annual Value for Money

29Average cost of maintained / academy special school - out borough £30,204 £27,473 £29,189 £30,665 A Annual Value for Money

30 Average cost of an independent > 16 £32,658 £34,051 £33,837 £35,024 A Annual Value for Money

31 Average cost of FE colleges > 16 £2,495 £2,711 £2,691 £3,466 AA number of lower cost placements have ceased. This average is likely to reduce as the academic year progresses. Annual Value for Money

32 Average cost of ISP > 16 £39,088 £29,202 £29,172 £34,266 AA number of lower cost placements have ceased. This average is likely to reduce as the academic year progresses. Annual Value for Money

33 Average cost of in borough special school > 16 £30,606 £24,949 £24,766 £25,272 A Annual Value for Money

34 Average placement cost - alternative provision £17,695 £17,171 £16,768 £16,768 G Annual Value for Money

35 Savings / mitigation - alternative provision £133,000 £0 £0 £0 G Annual Value for Money

36 Annual Review Savings / mitigation all age nya nya nya nya Annual Value for Money

37 Average cost of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) £21,183 £20,684 £20,009 £20,388 G Annual - In Plan Value for Money

38% of spend in: the independent, non-maintained special school and independent college sector 28.45% 26.60% 26.37% 27.81% A Annual Value for Money

74

Appendix B

KINGSTON FINANCIAL MODEL MONITORING

2021/22

KINGSTON FINANCIAL MODEL Financial Model Actual Q2 Variance RAG

£m £m £m

HNB allocation 25.897 25.690 -0.207 A

Budget additions (transfers) 0.462 0.663 0.201 G

Total budget 26.359 26.353 -0.006 G

HNB expenditure before savings 33.052 32.791 -0.261 G

Increased places in Specialist Resource Provisions (SRP) -0.071 -0.056 0.015 G

Review of SRP vacant place funding -0.073 -0.041 0.032 G

Increased special school places -0.047 -0.042 0.005 G

Development of post 16 offer -0.120 -0.024 0.096 A

Improved commissioning practice including annual reviews -0.351 -0.329 0.022 A

Contributions from other partners (health & social care) -0.599 -0.242 0.357 A

HNB expenditure after savings 31.791 32.057 0.266 G

Net HNB deficit 5.432 5.704 0.272 A

Variance in other DSG blocks -0.750 -0.646 0.104 A

General Fund Contribution -1.200 -1.200 0.000 G

Net DSG Deficit (incl GF contrn) 3.482 3.858 0.376 A

Net DSG deficit - cumulative before safety valve 28.607 28.260 -0.347 G

Net DSG deficit - cumulative after max safety valve 11.607 11.260 -0.347 G

75

Kingston SEND Partnership Board, July 2021

SEND Futures Plan Update

1. Introduction

a. The Council’s People Committee considered and endorsed the draft updated SEND Futures Plan in

June. The update included the Dedicated Schools Grant Financial Model as per the Safety Valve

Funding Agreement. The latest version of the SEND Futures documents are published on the Local

Offer website here.

b. The final report of the Local Government Association (LGA) Peer Review of SEND provision in Kingston

that took place in April is still awaited. The draft findings are included as a supporting document for a

separate item on this meeting’s agenda.

c. Under the terms of the Council’s “Safety Valve” Agreement, it is required to report quarterly to the

Department for Education on performance against terms in the agreement. On 18th June the Council

submitted their first quarterly reporting, and that report with two of the annexes is included as Annex 1

to this update report. The report states that “There is a good level of confidence that the terms and

conditions for 2021/22 will be fully met and that this work will support the achievement of conditions

associated with future years”.

d. The Ofsted / CQC inspection revisit following the original Local Area SEND Inspection of September

2018 has not yet materialised, and given the proximity of school holidays it seems likely that this will

now take place sometime in the new academic year. Of note is that Richmond received its first Local

Area SEND Inspection in June, with the outcome expected to be published in July.

2. Workstream 1: Co-production, engagement and participation

a. Children and young people with SEND continued to participate in a full programme of events including

Recruits Crew, the Easy Info Group and the monthly health meeting with the CCG’s Designated Clinical

Officer.

b. Recruitment for the new SEND Parent Carer Engagement Officer will start in July with the aim of having

the role in place as soon as possible in the new academic year.

c. In May the Director of Children’s Services chaired a workshop style meeting involving members of the

Parent Carer Forum Steering Group and colleagues from AfC and the CCG. With regard to joint working

with parents and carers, a summary of what is currently going well, what could be better and the

opportunities to improve is included as Annex 2 to this report. One outcome was to start a quarterly

meeting with the PCF Chair and AfC and CCG seniors to monitor progress against delivering on the

opportunities to improve. Another was to reassess identified priorities for joint working and to focus

on the following:

i. Engagement and outreach (including diversity) and communications

ii. The Coram Parent Champions scheme

iii. Improving therapy provision

76



iv. Developing the Outcomes Framework

v. Improving the SEN Support Offer

Following Dr Jo Steer’s attendance at the June Parent Carer Consortium meeting, it was agreed to add

a further priority:

iv. Support for parent carer emotional wellbeing

3. Workstream 2: Joint Commissioning

a. Matters relating to therapy provision and emotional wellbeing and mental health are included under

Workstream 3

b. The consultation relating to the recommissioning of certain aspects of the short breaks provision has

concluded and a summary of the findings is attached at Annex 3

c. The service relating to social care direct payments, personal budgets and personal health budgets,

currently commissioned from Kingston Centre for Independent Living, is due for recommissioning from

April 2022. An options appraisal, including joint working with Adult Services and Health and potentially

other boroughs, will be done to consider future opportunities to develop this service further.

d. Recruitment is underway for two SEN Placement Commissioning Managers to build on and embed the

improvements we have been making to our commissioning practice

4. Workstream 3: Local provision

a. Therapies

i. Regarding the service specifications for the newly recommissioned services, the occupational therapy

and physiotherapy specifications have been circulated and comments submitted. The speech and

language specification has been released for comment and the CCG’s Deputy Head of Transformation

and Children’s Services Lead will meet key stakeholders to discuss in July.

ii. Mapping a delivery programme onto the Balanced System (the commissioning framework going

forward) is in process. Recruitment is also ongoing for a number of services (following increased

funding this financial year). The best way for parents to continue to actively contribute to

implementation is also being discussed and progress with the proposed service level agreement with

schools to increase speech and language input is being reviewed.

b. Emotional wellbeing and mental health

i. The iThrive Model is being developed, including bringing national and regional leads together to plan

implementation in Kingston. Work includes partnering with local boroughs who are already using

action learning sets with operation, clinical, strategic perspectives, and for planning, providing and

performance management. Funding has been secured to develop this process in Kingston. The

assessment of the current situation is almost complete, with outstanding data required from SWLStG

NHS Trust.

ii. Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs) in schools Wave 6 has been agreed and will begin in January

2022 encompassing all schools. More information is available here.77

https://kr.afcinfo.org.uk/pages/local-offer/information-and-advice/health-services/emotional-health-service/mental-health-support-teams-mhst

c. Local Places

i. Work continues on the opening of the new Dysart satellite primary special school provision in North

Kingston in September 2021. Joint working with the DfE and Ambitious About Autism for the opening

of the new special free school at Moor Lane, with a target date September 2023 also continues, with a

planning application likely in the autumn.

ii. Several new / expanded specialist provisions are also still planned for September 2021. These are

moving forward although deadlines are now tight and we are grateful to all school and council

colleagues for their commitment and hard work to have these open on time. They are at Malden Oaks

(Post 16 SEMH), Alexandra (Key Stage 2) and Coombe Boys’ School (consultation underway for 20

places).

d. 16 to 25 Years

i. The multiagency Transitions Working Group is now meeting regularly and linking in with the wider

agenda of the Council’s Maximising Independence transformation workstream.

e. Concerns

i. Recruitment of therapists continues to be a problematic

ii. Whilst the iThrive model is a very attractive proposition in the long term, it does require significant

systemic change and investment across all providers and partners that will take time to deliver. This is

at the same time as the number of children and young people requiring related support is increasing

and waiting lists are significant.

f. Priorities for next 3 months

i. Establish a working party to take iThrive model forward, including parents and carers and children and

young people and colleagues from across the CCG, AfC, partners, South West London St George’s and

Adult Services.

ii. Complete specialist education provisions for September intake

iii. Establish Kingston Transition Board

iv. Finalise contract specifications for the three main therapies, with KPIs, and obtain all necessary sign

offs

5. Workstream 4: Early intervention and transitions


Significant initiatives to upskill the wider workforce continue:

i. First 1001 Days - practitioners have been trained in Video Interactive Guidance and will be working with

families open to social care where there is a baby under 1 year old to enhance attachment and

attunement.

78

ii. The Head of Children, Youth and Partnership will be re-introducing the Children’s Centre partnership -

four dates agreed and terms of reference drafted to ensure partnership approach to early years offer.

iii. Early Help Resilience Networks started to be held in January 2021 and continue to be held across both

boroughs for the three age groups (0-4, 5-10, 11+) every month and signposting to local services has

been possible for each family. The Early Help Strategic Board has agreed a data set and KPIs to review

impact on referrals into the Early Help service.

iv. Quality First Teaching (QFT) Inclusion Charter - core group and sub groups continue to meet to refine

the resource. Headteachers being consulted prior to the official launch. QFT reflective journal [related

to the part about teaching in the classroom] has been shared to see what initial thoughts are. SPARK Ed

action research project to be delivered by the SIP team once the programme has been launched so that

schools who identify themselves as needing support [through a self evaluation audit] can receive

additional help to embed the charter into their everyday working.

v. Transitions - Post 16 transition communication sharing has formally started for the first time with AfC

facilitating and initial feedback from colleges is strong [30 YP included so far]. A working group has

been established to further refine transition at both KS2-3 and KS4-5 so that schools manage it

themselves and we avoid duplication of forms - this new process will commence for the transition of

2022.

vi. Early intervention initiatives - Nurture continues to go generally well although some staffing issues on

one school are impacting delivery. Further work for 21-22 will be about applying the Nurture principles

across the whole school. Emotionally Related School Avoidance (ERSA) - continues to be a priority area

- meetings with health and education have been taking place to enable us to think reflectively about

how to better collaborate on meeting the needs of the young people where their needs are too great

for the ERSA toolkit to be used.

vii. Interventions - Education Inclusion Support Service (EISS) have re drafted their offer for secondary

schools and will be presenting these to secondary heads to ensure they are in line with what secondary

schools need ahead of 2021-22. These involve a focus on entrenched ERSA cases, an alternative

curriculum offer for the small numbers of young people for who a mainstream curriculum is not

suitable to aid progress and an offer to better support families who are experiencing challenges but do

not meet the threshold for Early Help support.


i. Entrenched Emotionally Related School Avoidance Cases (ERSA). Social anxiety has been on the rise for

some time and it is becoming clearer that this has been exacerbated by the pandemic. Schools have a

rising number of young people unable to access school and in some cases leave the home. Hence our

work with health to better align our energies.

ii. There is an increase in adolescent referrals in the Early Help Service, presenting with challenging

behaviour and mental health concerns. Data below for June 2021 (both Kingston and Richmond)

Age group(years)

Open cases % challengingbehaviour

% mentalhealth

0 - 4 22 38%

79

5 - 10 55 27% 13%

11 - 19 133 48% 25%


i. Have a Y7-8 alternative curriculum up and running

ii. Consult with Heads on the provisional QFT IC document

iii. Establish a clear strategy [with health] for supporting entrenched ERSA cases

iv. Adolescent Safeguarding restructure to be borough focused and have an additional worker for young

people presenting with contextual needs and mental health. Following this we will look at links and

secondment opportunities with Early Help - to increase knowledge and skills for the Early Help service

and support early intervention wherever possible.

6. Workstream 5: Assessment and planning


i. Joint working across the system to embed quality assurance within individual services and ensure

learning from bimonthly quality assurances into individual services for both Education, Health and Care

plans and annual reviews. Recognition of improvement within plans through bimonthly Quality

Assurance .

ii. Continuing development work around holistic outcomes which is provoking discussion across the

system . Development work is in process including introduction of a revised advice template for

Education,health and care needs assessment. This is initially being piloted in Richmond Therapies and

provides an opportunity for Physio,Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy to

establish joint outcomes for children who are known to all 3 services.

iii. School representatives are working together to develop school based quality assurance for Annual

Review. Reminders have been sent out to school SENCos to ensure that children and young people’s

views are captured within the Annual review.

iv. Introduction of an education, health and care needs assessment panel to support robustness of

decision making around decision making.

v. Timeliness of advice continues to be monitored and triangulated with providers.

b. Areas where progress has been slower than hoped

i. Quality work around plans in transition and linking to Preparation for Adulthood outcomes.

ii. Consistency of approach to Person Centred Outcomes.


i. Agreement to use standardised QA tool for advice across all services contributing advice

80

ii. Support for all parties involved in multi agency QA to improve quality and ensure consistency of advice

across advice givers. This will include a Train the Trainer programme through Helen Sanderson

Associates which will include a refreshed focus on “ Person Centred practice”.

iii. Moderation of QA to be conducted by core QA team.

iv. Increased school involvement in quality assurance of EHCP activities.

v. Evaluate the impact of the Education,Health and Care needs assessment plan.

d. Number of education, health and care plans

i. The total number of Education Health and Care plans maintained by Kingston on 5th July stood at 1465.

This was an increase of 96 over the previous twelve months, or 7%. The latest national data for the

increase in Education Health and Care plans is for calendar year 2020 when the number of plans

increased by 10.4% in England and 9.6% across London boroughs.

7. Finance update

The Borough is currently projecting a Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) overspend of £4.685m, including

£1.0m spend relating to EHC plans that have not yet been approved but are expected to be approved

before the end of the financial year. Assuming the Council is successful in claiming an additional £5m in

“Safety Valve” funding this year, and including a contribution of £1.2m from the Council, this would

result in a £10.9m cumulative DSG overspend at the end of this financial year. This position is

summarised below (note the budgets in this table exclude the £63.8m Schools Block and £5.5m High

Needs Block Academy Recoupments).

---------------------------

Ashley Whittaker

Programme Director

[email protected]

81

APPENDIX D

SEND FUTURES PLAN RISK REGISTER - AUGUST 21

Risks Impact Strategy Actions RiskScore

Partnership Board

Lack of partner engagementand shared ownership ofthe plan with resultant lackof investment

There is no or limited traction in delivering thesystem change and behaviours that arenecessary to transform services and achievebetter outcomes for children and young peoplewith SEND within the financial resourcesavailable.

Mitigate Provide strong leadership of the SENDPartnership Board. Maintain currentengagement from all key partneragencies to the vision, shared valuesand key activities. Obtain supportfrom the Health and Wellbeing Board.Maintain the current schedule ofregular meetings and reporting toshare progress and achievements.

High

Ineffective governance ofthe SEND Partnership Boardand workstreams.

There is a lack of focus and pace in deliveringactivities, and drift and delay in decisionmaking. There is duplication and mixedmessaging from partnership boards and otherorganisations working in this arena, includingthe Health and Wellbeing Board, SENDPartnership Board Schools Forum.

Mitigate Strengthen governance structuresthat are all clearly understood andadhered to by all stakeholders. Ensurethere is effective stakeholderrepresentation on the SENDPartnership Board and fiveworkstreams. Deliver a detailedcommunications plan.

Moderate

Lack of capacity andcapability to drive anddeliver transformation.

Key activities in the plan cannot be deliveredwithin the timescales necessary. Partnerorganisations, parents and carers lose faith in

Mitigate Sufficient resources from all partnerorganisations are allocated to deliverthe activities in the plan. There is

High

82

APPENDIX D

their ability to achieve system change. strong senior leadership of the fiveworkstreams. There is a programmeto upskill the workforce to deliver theplan. Additional resources andexpertise are sourced externallywhere this is required.

Lack of agreement on howDSG funding is sharedbetween different blocks.

There is a significant financial gap in the planwhich will need to be met from other activities.

Mitigate Build consensus across the wholesystem for how DSG funding shouldbe shared. Continue discussions withthe Department for Education on thenational DSG funding formula.Contingency plans are established toallocate the funding shortfall to otheractions within the plan.

High

The impact of the COVIDpandemic

The delivery of SEND services and progress ofchildren and young people with SEND areimpacted by a range of consequences includingthe redeployment of staff, increased absencefrom school and challenges of engaging withhome learning.

Mitigate Frequent communications betweenagencies, providers and families toidentify and respond to relatedmatters as quickly as possible. Forthose with an EHC plan, the annualreview process will provide moreinformation. It is important thatschools and colleges use thesubstantial amounts of “catch uppremium“ funding provided directlyto them by the Department forEducation to provide additionalsupport to relevant learners. Theimpact of COVID on the content and

High

83

APPENDIX D

number of requests for EHC needsassessments will also be monitored.

Workstream 1: Participation , Engagement and Co-production

Inability to secure aneffective and engagedparent-carer forum (PCF)that is able to workcollaboratively in the SENDpartnership.

The voices and opinions of parents and carersdo not inform strategic decision-making.Implementation of the plan is not successful asparents are not informed, aware or signed upto the system change required.

Mitigate Develop ways to incentivise andreward parents and carers to beinvolved. PCF membership of theSEND Partnership Forum andworkstreams.

Moderate

Workstream 2: Joint Commissioning

Inability to recruit and retainprofessionals withcommercial and contractmanagement expertise

There is insufficient capacity or skill in theplacement commissioning to negotiate andmanage contracts with providers that reducecosts.

Mitigate Job profiles, salary levels and therecruitment process attract goodcandidates with commercial expertiseand experience. There is an effectiveinduction, development and supportpackage available to all professionalsinvolved

High

Commercial negotiationswith SEND providers areunproductive.

Placement costs are not reduced, meaning thatadditional savings have to be found from otherareas of the plan.

Mitigate There is an effective induction,development and support packageavailable to all professionals involvedin placement brokerage. Expertise incommercial contract management issecured from the Council or broughtin from an external consultant on arisk and reward basis.

High

84

APPENDIX D

Workstream 3: Local Provision

Support from schools forthe local SEND provisionplan is not consistent orsufficient to create theadditional school placesrequired.

There are insufficient local special schoolplaces to meet the needs identified in theSEND provision plan, making the Council morereliant on maintained and special schoolsoutside the borough and on non-maintainedand independent school provision

Mitigate There is effective engagement andcommunication with schools throughexisting networks to agree the localprovision plan. Proposals are basedon a detailed analysis of local needs.Good consultation with schools andother stakeholders leads to strongproposals and well managed plans todevelop new provision.

Low

Local therapy provision isunable to be delivered tomeet the identified needs ofchildren with disabilities.

Children’s therapeutic needs cannot be metlocally leading to placements in more specialistschool provision and at a higher cost.

Mitigate The recommendations of the therapyreview are implemented asap, andsufficient funding and resourcessecured.

High

Parents and carers do notfeel confident that localmainstream schools,specialist resourceprovisions and specialschools are able to meettheir child’s assessed needs.

There is an increase in the number of disputedEHCPs and appeals to the First-Tier SENDTribunal on the basis of parental preference.The workload for SEND professionals isincreased and there is a potential for thetribunal to direct that the local authority makesalternative and higher cost provision.

Mitigate There is a clear strategy to promotethe resources and facilities availablein local provision and the outcomesthey achieve for children and youngpeople with SEND. The quality of localprovision is actively promoted by allpractitioners in their relationshipswith parents and through theirprofessional networks.

Moderate

Emotional wellbeing andmental health needsamongst children and young

Expenditure from the High Needs Blockincreases to meet their needs

Mitigate Develop the universal earlyintervention offer, recruit andredeploy staff to meet needs as

High

85

APPENDIX D

with and without SENDincrease

quickly as possible and preventescalation where possible, developiThrive model asap.

Workstream 4: Early Interventions and Transitions

School professionals do notsupport inclusion and earlyintervention, or there isinconsistent support acrossschools.

Children and young people with SEND cannotbe supported within mainstream schools orspecialist resource provisions, meaning thatthey have to be transferred to special schoolsor non-maintained and independent schools ata higher cost.

Mitigate There is effective engagement andcommunication with professionalsthrough the SENCO and headteachernetworks. There is an effectivelearning, development and supportoffer to schools to support inclusivepractice. The shape of the offer isinformed by learning from EHCPassessments, tribunals and otherfeedback.

Moderate

Inability to recruit and retainprofessionals who are ableto provide expert outreachsupport to schools andproviders.

There is insufficient capacity, skill and expertisewithin the inclusion service to support schoolswith targeted interventions.

Mitigate Job profiles, salary levels and therecruitment process attract goodcandidates with inclusion expertiseand experience. Flexible workingarrangements are available includingsecondments from schools. There isan effective induction, developmentand support package available to allprofessionals involved in targetedinterventions.

Moderate

Transition arrangementsbetween children’s services

Young adults with SEND do not receive thesupport they need in a timely way from the

Mitigate The preparing for adulthood strategy,transitions protocol and inclusion in

High

86

APPENDIX D

and adult social careservices are notimplemented.

appropriate services. Ineffective transition andworking arrangements between children’sservices and adult social care lead tofragmentation and build higher costs into thesystem.

the Council’s MaximisingIndependence transformationprogramme facilitates earlyconsideration and planning for youngpeople’s transition. Fundingresponsibilities are made clear withinthe protocol and are agreed in eachindividual case.

Workstream 5: Assessment and Planning

Inability to recruit and retainexperienced professionalswithin the SEND service,including educationalpsychologists, case workersand annual review officers.

There is insufficient capacity, skill and expertisewithin the SEND service to drive up the qualityof EHCPs and maximise the benefit of theannual EHCP review process.

Mitigate Job profiles, salary levels and therecruitment process attract goodcandidates with SEND expertise andexperience. Flexible workingarrangements are available, includingsecondments from schools. There isan effective induction, developmentand support package available to allSEND professionals.

High

Annual EHCP reviews andupdates to plans followingquality assurance requiresubstantial changes toplans.

There is insufficient capacity within the SENDservice to make required changes to EHCPs.Proposed changes to plans result in parentalchallenge, disputed EHCPs and appeals to theSEND tribunal, which may result in higher costprovision.

Mitigate The management structure andstaffing of the SEND service isregularly reviewed to ensuresufficient capacity. There is a priorityprogramme for annual EHCP reviewsand quality assurance and this is wellcoordinated and managed by specificsenior staff. There is engagement withparents and carers. Assessments and

High

87

APPENDIX D

plans are well evidenced by allcontributing professionals.

Annual EHCP reviews do notreduce the costs ofindividual plans to anaffordable funding level thatmeets the child’s or youngperson’s needs.

Proposed changes to plans result in increasedparental challenge, disputed EHCPs andappeals to the SEND tribunal, which may resultin higher cost provision

Mitigate Annual EHCP reviews and qualityassurance are well coordinated andmanaged. There is engagement withparents and carers. Assessments andplans are well evidenced by allcontributing professionals.

High

The SEND service does nothave the systems, processesand support it needs todrive up the quality of EHCPassessments and plans.

The quality of EHCP assessments and plansdoes not improve at the required pace. EHCPsdo not robustly and sufficiently evidence howand where children’s and young people’seducation, health and care needs can be met.This may result in increased parental challenge,disputed EHCPs and appeals to the SENDtribunal, which may result in higher costprovision.

Mitigate There is a priority programme forannual EHCP reviews and qualityassurance.

High

88

ITEM 8

REPORT TO: Kingston Schools Forum


SUBJECT: 2021/22 Finance Update

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. To update the Forum on:

● The current DSG allocation and its application to the Schools Budget in 2021/22;

● The projected DSG position for the 2021/22 financial year

2. Recommendations

2.1. That the Forum:

● Notes the latest DSG allocation for the 2021/22 financial year;

● Notes the projected DSG outturn position for the 2021/22 financial year

3. DSG Budget in the 2021/22 Financial Year

3.1 The allocation has not changed since the previous forum and remains at £159 million for theborough.

Application of 2021/22 DSG

Total DSGallocation

£m

AcademyRecoupment

£m

LAadministered

£m

PreviousForum

£m

School Block 117.460 (67.057) 50.403 50.403

Central School Services Block 1.128 0.000 1.128 1.128

Early Years Block 13.651 0.000 13.651 13.651

High Needs Block 26.353 (5.549) 20.804 20.804

Total Schools Budget 158.591 (72.606) 85.986 85.986

3.2 Although not formally part of the DSG Fund there are two additional sources of funding to supporthigh needs education that will impact on the outturn this year:

● Safety Valve Grant Funding - As part of the recent agreement with the DfE the Local Authority isable to claim up to an additional £5m (£1.25m per quarter) in grant funding in 2021/22 tocontribute towards the historic cumulative DSG deficit. Successful claim of this additionalfunding is subject to the borough successfully implementing the SEND Futures Plan. The agreedtargets have been met for the first six months of the year and the Local Authority has thereforereceived £2.5m to date.

● Council Funding - The Local Authority has agreed to provide an additional £1.2m of councilfunding to support high needs education in 2021/22. This action has been identified as part ofthe SEND Futures Plan.

89

4. Current Projected DSG for the 2021/22 financial year

4.1. The Borough is currently projecting spend of £163.665m on DSG funded education services in2021/22 compared to a grant allocation of £158.591m (including recoupment). This represents acurrent projected overspend of £5.074m, including £0.25m for EHCPs that have not yet beenapproved but are expected to be approved before the end of the financial year. The funding isforecast to be spent as follows:

2021/22 DSG Outturn

Budget

£m

Outturn

£m

Variance

£m

Future

Demand

£m

Variance

incl Future

Demand

£m

Previous

Forum

£m

Schools Block 50.403 50.188 (0.215) 0.000 (0.215) (0.210)

Central School Services Block 1.128 1.128 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) (0.000)

Early Years Block 13.651 13.188 (0.462) 0.000 (0.462) (0.436)

High Needs Block 20.804 26.305 5.501 0.250 5.751 5.688

Sub-Total 85.986 90.809 4.824 0.250 5.074 5.042

2020/21 Carry forward (12.401) 0.000 12.401 0.000 12.401 12.401

Safety Valve Funding 5.000 0.000 (5.000) 0.000 (5.000) (5.000)

Council Funding 1.200 0.000 (1.200) 0.000 (1.200) (1.200)

Total 79.785 90.809 11.025 0.250 11.275 11.243

4.2. The number of EHCPs have increased by a net 50 since 31 March 2021 to 1,479. This figure includes70 new EHCPs agreed since April 2021.

4.3. The position above assumes that the Council is successful in claiming an additional £5m in ‘safetyvalve’ funding this year. Receipt of this money will be subject to successful implementation of theSEND Futures Plan. The Plan and progress to date is discussed in detail elsewhere on this agenda andso is not repeated within this report.

4.4. The following paragraphs explain the projected position in more detail:

Schools Block

4.5. The Schools Block is currently projected to underspend by £215k. This mainly relates to an

adjustment made by the ESFA in relation to Chessington School’s business rates, following conversion

to academy status. Information relating to Business Rates bills and growth fund requirements

materialise as the year progresses and will be better known later in the Autumn term 2021. The

business rates and growth fund projections are subject to change with actual expenditure

materialising throughout the year. Any in-year underspends relating to Business Rate bills is carried

forward and where there is a growing cumulative underspend repaid to maintained schools.

Schools Budget Share

Budget

£

Spend

£

Over/(Under)

spend

£

Previous

Forum

£

Schools Budget Share 49,732,900 49,522,919 (209,981) (209,981)

Business Rates Contingency 71,800 71,800 0 0

90

Reintegration Support (delivered by AfC) 268,100 263,100 (5,000) 0

SPARK 130,600 130,600 0 0

Growth Fund 200,000 200,000 0 0

Total 50,403,400 50,188,419 (214,981) (209,981)

Central School Services Block

4.6. The Central School Services Block is currently projected to be on budget.

Central Block

Budget

£

Spend

£

Over/(Under)

spend

£

Previous

Forum

£

Prudential Borrowing 112,800 112,800 0 0

Copyright Licences 123,500 123,470 (30) (30)

Schools Forum 1,000 1,000 0 0

Primary Mental Health 80,400 80,400 0 0

Virtual School 115,000 115,000 0 0

Family Support Team 39,900 39,900 0 0

Admissions 218,500 218,500 0 0

Commissioning and Procurement 15,700 15,700 0 0

14-19 Commissioning 98,700 98,700 0 0

Education Services Management 102,400 102,400 0 0

School Place Commissioning 10,700 10,700 0 0

Education Inclusion 65,000 65,000 0 0

School Improvement 54,900 54,900 0 0

Teachers Pension 89,400 89,400 0 0

Total 1,127,900 1,127,870 (30) (30)

Early Years Block

4.7. The Early Years Block current projected underspend has increased by £26,300 from the previous

forum. Projections are based on the latest available census information, current actual expenditure,

and historical trends of termly numbers.

Early Years Block

Budget

£

Spend

£

Over/(Under)

spend

£

Previous

Forum

£

Early Years Nursery PVI 2 Yr Old 1,134,100 1,082,700 (51,400) (51,400)

Early Years Nursery PVI 3&4 Yr Old 8,218,900 8,058,900 (160,000) (160,000)

Early Years Nursery Additional 15 Hours 3,263,700 3,063,700 (200,000) (200,000)

91

Early Years Nursery Pupil Premium 61,200 57,300 (3,900) 0

Disability Access Funding 42,400 20,000 (22,400) 0

Early Years Advisory Service 132,700 132,700 0 0

Early Years SEND Inclusion Fund 546,000 521,455 (24,545) (24,545)

Early Years Therapy Service 137,000 137,000 0 0

Home visits services for children with SEND 78,500 78,500 0 0

Surbiton Hill Nursery Outreach 36,100 36,100 0 0

Total 13,650,600 13,188,355 (462,245) (435,945)

4.8. The SEND Inclusion Fund is expected to be underspent by £24,545. This funding is allocated to

support the inclusion of children with SEND, promote early intervention and improve outcomes for

children. Providers who support children with SEND can request additional financial support from the

fund. The Early Years Advisory Teacher post has remained vacant during the Covid restrictions.

Budget Spend

Over/(Under

) Spend

Previous

Forum

SEND Inclusion Fund £ £ £ £

Termly Inclusion Fund 136,000 151,800 15,800 29,000

Discretionary Fund 34,000 34,000 0 0

Early Years Advisory Teacher 29,000 13,200 (15,800) (29,000)

Early Years Enhanced Service 31,000 31,000 0 0

Units / Top ups for children with EHCP 316,000 291,455 (24,545) (24,500)

Total 546,000 521,455 (24,545) (24,500)

High Needs Block

4.9. The underfunding of high needs education remains a challenge in 2021/22. The position includes

projected spend of £32,103,720 against a budget allocation of £27,552,700 (including general fund

contribution), representing an overspend of £4,551,020. This includes an allowance for future need of

£250,000 which is based on the anticipated value of new EHCPs before the year end. Significant work

continues across all partners to improve efficiency. The team is working hard to balance the ongoing

need for cost reduction / cost avoidance with the statutory duty to effectively support young people.

Progress against the SEND Futures Plan is discussed in detail elsewhere on this agenda.

4.10. The increase of £63k since the last forum relates to:

● £112k increase in independent school projections for 1 new placement and 5 placement

adjustments

● £105k increases within post 16 for new placements

● £85k new placement top ups in Academies

● £79k over numbers in special schools

● £350k of the above was mitigated by reducing the future demand contingency from £600k

to £250k

92

4.11. The main reasons for the pressures in the High Needs Block are detailed below:

High Needs Block 2021/22

2020/21

Outturn

£

2021/22

Budget

£

2021/22

Projection

£

2021/22

Variance

£

Previous

Forum

£

Places Special School & Units 1,397,667 604,500 721,292 116,792 38,458

Top ups - Maintained 2,436,823 1,847,500 2,184,840 337,340 321,094

Top ups - Academies 6,747,309 5,416,400 7,317,128 1,900,728 1,816,443

Top ups - Out borough 2,058,488 1,628,300 2,205,634 577,334 583,047

Top ups - Malden Oaks 349,311 1,164,900 1,228,338 63,438 61,374

Independent Placements 5,416,066 3,823,000 5,123,623 1,300,623 1,189,007

Targeted High Needs 300,003 300,000 300,000 0 0

Post 16 4,417,101 3,910,400 4,794,768 884,368 779,088

Early Intervention 208,192 0 207,116 207,116 210,636

Therapies 247,425 347,000 356,881 9,881 9,111

SEN Support Services 523,738 561,800 662,913 101,113 94,792

Support for Inclusion 460,228 673,900 688,800 14,900 (2,900)

Therapies and other health related

services 492,714 526,000 513,387 (12,613) (12,554)

Total Before Recoupment and Future

Demand 25,055,065 20,803,700 26,304,720 5,501,020 5,087,596

Academy Recoupment 5,215,335 5,549,000 5,549,000 0 0

Future Demand Allowance 0 0 250,000 250,000 600,000

Total High Needs Block incl Recoupment 30,270,400 26,352,700 32,103,720 5,751,020 5,687,596

Council Funding 0 1,200,000 0 (1,200,000) (1,200,000)

Total including Council Funding 30,270,400 27,552,700 32,103,720 4,551,020 4,487,596

Places in Special Schools and Units

4.12. Projected spend of £721,292 is funded from the high needs block for special schools and unit places.

A further £5,459,000 is forecast to be spent on place funding recoupment for academies and

colleges.

Pupils under the age of 16

4.13. The Borough is projecting to spend £12,935,940 on top up funding (£11.234m in 2020/21) in

2021/22. There are currently 819 top ups, compared to 805 reported at the previous forum. It is

highly likely that these numbers will increase throughout 2021/22, with a proportion of the £250,000

future demand figure relating to top up funding. The cost of top ups depend on rates set by schools.

Where possible a request is being made for top up levels to be frozen but AfC are limited in terms of

what can be negotiated when out of borough schools increase charges.

93

Funding Stream Pre 16

CurrentForum

Numbers

CurrentProjection

£

CurrentAverage Cost

£

PreviousForum

Numbers

PreviousAverage Cost

£

Top up - Out of Borough Total 141 2,205,634 15,643 153 14,453

Top ups - Academies Total 439 7,317,128 16,668 436 16,589

Top ups - Maintained Total 239 3,413,178 14,281 216 15,747

Total 819 12,935,940 15,795 805 15,949

4.14. The expected spend on independent places totals £5,123,623 (£5.012m previous forum). This

projection relates to all independent and non-maintained placements for pupils under the age of

sixteen in 2021/22. A proportion of the future demand allowance in the monthly projections relates

to independent placements, which is adjusted for placement movements throughout the financial

year.

4.15. The numbers below include pupils across placement types on Individual Programmes (e.g. Speech

and Language Therapy, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy and Applied Behaviour Analysis). As the

year progresses the current reporting figure of 2021/22 is anticipated to change due to future

demand, tribunal placement movements and new academic year changes. The pupils and costs can

be further broken down as follows:

Placement Cost Ranges Current Previous Forum

0 - £5,000 21 18

£5,001 - £20,000 18 20

£20,001 - £50,000 72 88

£50,001 - £75,000 33 37

£75,001 - £100,000 4 4

£100,001 - £150,000 0 1

over £150,000 0 0

Total 148 168

Placement / Programme Current

Previous

Forum

ABA Program 0 0

Nursery 5 7

Individual Tuition 9 12

Other including home educated

/missing education 17 12

Sub Total 31 31

Non Maintained Schools 19 21

Independent Special 81 95

Independent Other 17 21

94

Sub -Total 117 137

Total 148 168

Pupils over the age of 16

4.16. The Borough is forecasting to spend £4,794,768 on high needs education (£4.689m previous forum)

for pupils over the age of 16.

4.17. These learners are educated in school placements, independent special provisions (ISP), further

education settings and vocational training settings. The percentage of learners in college and

apprenticeships is currently 68%, which is slightly lower than the 70% in 2020/21, although this figure

is forecast to increase throughout the financial/new academic year.

4.18. Month six projections of learner numbers anticipate a decrease of 11 compared to the previous

forum report. This is mainly due to the uncertainty about the number of learners transitioning into

Post 16 and college placements in the new academic year. Numbers are expected to increase in the

year with an allowance made in the future demand provision for future costs.

Post 16 Financial Year

ProjectedAnnual

cost

AverageLearner

NumbersAverage

Cost

PreviousAverageLearner

Numbers

PreviousAverage

Cost

£ £ £

Academies and Maintained Schools 92,052 26 3,496 25 3,437

Special Schools 428,649 28 15,493 27 15,457

Out of Borough Special and

Mainstream 521,976 26 20,337 26 20,008

Schools Total 1,042,677 80 78

Independent School 1,586,173 44 35,511 44 34,493

Independent School Total 1,586,173 44 44

Independent Specialist Provider (ISP) 1,443,600 44 32,809 42 33,722

Further Education 572,419 163 3,519 175 3,308

Vocational Training 18,184 21 866 23 349

Personal Budgets 131,715 35 3,728 36 3,909

College/Apprenticeship Total 2,165,918 263 276

Post 16 Totals 4,794,768 387 12,390 398 11,783

4.19. Post 16 spend in schools across Independent Placements, Mainstream, Academies, Special Schools

and Out of Borough is forecast to be £2,628,850 (£2.547m previous forum). This is split by

non-independent schools spending of £1,042,677 and independent spend of £1,586,173. The

Independent cost ranges are shown in the following table:

Independent Cost Ranges - Post 16

CurrentLearner

NumbersPrevious

Forum

95

£0 - £5,000 8 8

£5,001 - £20,000 4 5

£20,001 - £50,000 23 22

£50,001 - £75,000 6 5

£75,001 - £100,000 4 4

£100,001 - £150,000 0 0

over £150,000 0 0

Total 44 44

4.20. Spend on Post 16 only providers across Independent Specialist Providers (ISP) and Further Education

(FE) is forecast to be £2,016,019 (£2.002m previous forum). Further Education numbers have

significantly increased since 2016/17, and currently remain similar to 2020/21. ISP numbers are

currently projected to increase from 2020/21 levels, from 34 at year end to 44, due to projected

2021/22 academic year changes.

Central High Needs Spend

4.21. The projected spend on centrally coordinated high needs services in 2021/22 is £1,865,100. This

represents a projected overspend of £103,400 on approved budgets. The overspend mainly relates to

the SEND Transformation program due to additional staffing costs.

Central High Needs Budget 2021/22

2020/21

Outturn

£

2021/22

Budget

£

2021/22

Projection

£

2021/22

Variance

£

Previous

Variance

£

Anstee Bridge 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0

Inclusion Management 50,800 50,800 50,800 0 0

Inclusion Grant 8,428 22,100 22,100 0 0

Speech & Language 282,100 287,700 298,587 10,887 10,946

SEN Team 137,000 151,000 151,000 0 0

Sensory Impairment 116,000 118,300 129,800 11,500 11,500

SEN Transformation 79,775 86,800 197,913 111,113 108,667

SEN Commissioning 40,700 68,100 68,100 0 0

Education Strategic Management 73,500 73,500 63,500 (10,000) (13,875)

Pupil Inclusion and Support 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 0

Education Safeguarding Advisor 17,400 17,400 17,400 0 0

External Legal Advice 175,363 165,000 165,000 0 0

Nurture Programme - Invest to Save 94,614 120,000 85,000 (35,000) (35,000)

Reintegration Service (delivered by

Malden Oaks) 281,000 281,000 294,000 13,000 13,000

Early Intervention including The Bridge 0 200,000 201,900 1,900 (15,900)

Total High Needs Block excl

Recoupment 1,476,680 1,761,700 1,865,100 103,400 79,338

96

5. COVID-19

5.1. The impact of COVID-19 on Dedicated Schools Grant budgets still remains unclear. There is a

potential for an increase in the level of need within current EHCPs and an increase in the number

of requests for new EHCPs because of the disruption that children and young people have

experienced during the pandemic. The government committed to additional catch up grant

funding but it is unclear if additional resources will be required over and above the funding

provided. The position will continue to be monitored as the year progresses.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 Based on information available to date, the borough is on track to meet the financial performance

indicators (2021/22) that were agreed with the Department for Education as part of the Safety Valve

grant funding agreement. The information in this report assumes achievement of the financial and

service development conditions and therefore the successful claim of an additional £5m in safety

valve funding to reduce the cumulative deficit. These financial performance indicators form part of

the SEND Futures Plan. An update on progress is discussed in detail under item six of this agenda.

The SEND Futures Plan also provides that the Local Authority will allocate £1.2m in general fund

support to the Dedicated Schools Grant Fund this year. There is a clear expectation from the DfE

that this subsidy from the council's resources should reduce over time and the DSG Fund should

become self-sufficient.

6.2 It is imperative that all local partners continue to work together to implement plans and improve

the efficiency and quality of local education support. The SEND Partnership Board continues to

monitor this partnership work and the most recent papers can be accessed at the following link:

SEND Partnership Board documents

7. Contacts

Collette CarterHead of FinanceAchieving for [email protected]

97

https://kr.afcinfo.org.uk/pages/local-offer/information-and-advice/send-consultation-hub-and-resource-bank/send-futures-kingston/kingston-send-partnership-board

mailto:[email protected]

Kingston upon Thames Schools Forum

Documents

Transcript of Kingston upon Thames Schools Forum